Ukraine

[Beechey]

On 30/06/2022 at 10:14, pmcla26 said:

It's amazing how the Government can pick and choose when there is money to help people out. Like you said, how about sort things out in house first. £1 billion is a crazy figure. 

It's important to note that these GBP figures are generally just the cost of the items from stockpiles being sent. The UK govt is not sending £1 billion in cash, but £1 billion of equipment. The monetary figures we send are much less than the equipment we send.

Between 2014-2021, the UK spent approximately $113bn on equipment, so it has stores of items it can send without actively spending money right now.

[fox_favourite]

4 hours ago, Beechey said:

It's important to note that these GBP figures are generally just the cost of the items from stockpiles being sent. The UK govt is not sending £1 billion in cash, but £1 billion of equipment. The monetary figures we send are much less than the equipment we send.

Between 2014-2021, the UK spent approximately $113bn on equipment, so it has stores of items it can send without actively spending money right now.

One of the most sensible posts I’ve read. Well done that fox 

Edited 4 July 2022 by fox_favourite

[MPH]

An excellent read for anyone who is still following what is going on..

 

 

[MPH]

What a surprise!

 

Ukraine war: Russia's Lavrov says ready to expand war aims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62231936

[yorkie1999]

8 minutes ago, MPH said:

What a surprise!

 

Ukraine war: Russia's Lavrov says ready to expand war aims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62231936

The long term goal has always been to remove Ukraine from the map, If the West stops supplying weapons, which a lot of people say will end the war(fairly obvious), Russia will take Ukraine as it's own, remove the population who oppose it through whatever means and make it part of Russia. Then the next country will be either Poland or Romania with the same bullshit of a Nato country on Russias border. Supplying (selling) weapons capable of striking Moscow is the only real way of saving Ukraine.

[SpacedX]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The long term goal has always been to remove Ukraine from the map, If the West stops supplying weapons, which a lot of people say will end the war(fairly obvious), Russia will take Ukraine as it's own, remove the population who oppose it through whatever means and make it part of Russia. Then the next country will be either Poland or Romania with the same bullshit of a Nato country on Russias border. Supplying (selling) weapons capable of striking Moscow is the only real way of saving Ukraine.

Ukraine was not a member of NATO and Russia will not risk triggering Article 5.

[yorkie1999]

31 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Ukraine was not a member of NATO and Russia will not risk triggering Article 5.

That's right, but what makes you think that Russia won't risk it. The problem with article 5 is that an attack on a country such as Poland does not necessarily mean an all out war, the first thing is that all nato countries would have to agree to it. So, if Russia did attack Poland, what would the response be? Would countries in the direct firing line of Russia be prepared for war on a european theatre? The US would as they have a ballistic missile defense system, but would Germany or France?  I don't think so, so in effect Russia would be calling Nato's bluff. 

Edited 20 July 2022 by yorkie1999

[String fellow]

Is Lavrov blaming mission creep on the West? It sounds like it. But the Russians have lied about everything else, so I agree that their long term goal has always been to delete Ukraine from the map, despite all the nonsense about just 'liberating' the Donbas region. The question is, at what point does Nato consider stepping in big-time i.e. by sending in troops, to perhaps try to partition the country, just as Germany was partitioned after the war? Whatever happens, this news is extremely concerning for Ukraine's defenders and raises the spectre of the war getting even worse than it already is.

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That's right, but what makes you think that Russia won't risk it. The problem with article 5 is that an attack on a country such as Poland does not necessarily mean an all out war, the first thing is that all nato countries would have to agree to it. So, if Russia did attack Poland, what would the response be? Would countries in the direct firing line of Russia be prepared for war on a european theatre? I don't think so, so in effect Russia would be calling Nato's bluff. 

Like I said - no way Russia will risk invoking it - and I entirely disagree, an invasion of either Romania or Poland as you originally intimated would most certainly result in a declaration of war by NATO. 

[Tommy Fresh]

24 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That's right, but what makes you think that Russia won't risk it. The problem with article 5 is that an attack on a country such as Poland does not necessarily mean an all out war, the first thing is that all nato countries would have to agree to it. So, if Russia did attack Poland, what would the response be? Would countries in the direct firing line of Russia be prepared for war on a european theatre? The US would as they have a ballistic missile defense system, but would Germany or France?  I don't think so, so in effect Russia would be calling Nato's bluff. 

The fact that NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine didn't lead to a bigger response from Russia tells you all you need to know really about their apetitie to actually engage NATO in conflict.

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

The fact that NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine didn't lead to a bigger response from Russia tells you all you need to know really about their apetitie to actually engage NATO in conflict.

The fact that Nato only supplying weapons with an 80km range tells you all you need to know about Nato's lack of willingness to provoke Moscow.

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Tommy Fresh said:

The fact that NATO supplying weapons to Ukraine didn't lead to a bigger response from Russia tells you all you need to know really about their apetitie to actually engage NATO in conflict.

Actually, Lavrov has warned that the Kremlin's strategy is changing once more after the West supplied Ukraine with longer-range weapons. He recently intimated that Russia would now in response have to push Ukrainian forces further west from the front line to ensure its own security. Whether this is more browbeating threatening  rhetoric from Moscow remains to be seen. 

[SpacedX]

13 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The fact that Nato only supplying weapons with an 80km range tells you all you need to know about Nato's lack of willingness to provoke Moscow.

Nonsense. Much of the strategy lies in mobility. HIMARS and MLRS are designed for rapid deployment. Also, recently pledged French Caeser artillery - one of the most prized and appreciated additions to the Ukrainian war effort - has a range of 600km, which is one of the main game changers that has provoked Lavrov's recent response. 

Edited 20 July 2022 by Line-X

[yorkie1999]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Nonsense. Much of the strategy lies in mobility. HIMARS and MLRS is designed for rapid deployment. Also, recently pledged French Caeser artillery - one of the most prized and appreciated additions to the Ukrainian war effort, has a range of 600km which is one of the main game changers that has provoked Lavrov's recent response. 

The himars and mrls that Ukraine have been supplied with so far don't include the long range single rocket system.

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The himars and mrls that Ukraine have been supplied with so far don't include the long range single rocket system.

No, because as I explained the strategy is mobility and rapid deployment, which is huge on the battlefield. However, as I also explained, French supplied CAESER does...artillery reaching 600km. 

 

Seriously, what is it with this forum? Read my reply. 

Edited 20 July 2022 by Line-X
Spelling

[Tommy Fresh]

32 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Actually, Lavrov has warned that the Kremlin's strategy is changing once more after the West supplied Ukraine with longer-range weapons. He recently intimated that Russia would now in response have to push Ukrainian forces further west from the front line to ensure its own security. Whether this is more browbeating threatening  rhetoric from Moscow remains to be seen. 

Yeah but they haven't retaliated against NATO is more the point I'm getting at.

Edited 20 July 2022 by Tommy Fresh

[Tommy Fresh]

29 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The fact that Nato only supplying weapons with an 80km range tells you all you need to know about Nato's lack of willingness to provoke Moscow.

Provoke? They are literally arming the enemy, regardless of range

[yorkie1999]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No, because as I explained the strategy is mobility and rapid deployment, which is huge on the battlefield. However, as I also explained, French supplied CAESER does...artillery reaching 600km. 

 

Seriously, what is it with this forum? Read my reply. 

Well, it’s not as huge as being capable of striking the enemies capital, which would end this conflict, and so far the US will not supply atacms, which fires from himars and so far a pledge from France of medium range missiles has not transpired.

[yorkie1999]

9 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Provoke? They are literally arming the enemy, regardless of range

Selling arms is perfectly acceptable, even Russia understand that.

[Tommy Fresh]

9 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Selling arms is perfectly acceptable, even Russia understand that.

Are they being sold?

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well, it’s not as huge as being capable of striking the enemies capital, which would end this conflict, and so far the US will not supply atacms, which fires from himars and so far a pledge from France of medium range missiles has not transpired.

That wasn't your original point. You said that the fact that there was no capability beyond 80km "tells you all you need to know" It really doesn't.  

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Are they being sold?

Leased, whatever that means, but i think the 1 trillion cubic meters of gas and 5 billion tonnes of oil recently discovered under Ukraine might have something to do with it all. In effect, removing russia's  hold over Germany.

[LCFCCHRIS]

Lavrov and all of Russia are full of it, blaming their war goal expansion on the US and the west. Disgusting nation with pigs for leaders. 

[MPH]

2 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Lavrov and all of Russia are full of it, blaming their war goal expansion on the US and the west. Disgusting nation with pigs for leaders. 

 

it’s the most obvious fabricated justification for doing what they wanted to do all along.

[fox_favourite]

Lavrov always plays the victim card. The press conference in venezuela where they we’re announcing a close in ties. Lavrov blamed the western media and western countries for the way Russia was coming across and how it was wrong that we sensored their media. Well, yes we did, but look closer to home. Who stopped all independent media? Who could put you in jail for 10yrs for saying it’s a war and anything against the government? Who’s opposition leaders suddenly disappear?

 

Also, blaming the West for further movement into Ukraine. “Oh no, look we destroyed cities, livelihoods and civilian people all because of everyone else. It’s a very dangerous way to think. 

Edited 21 July 2022 by fox_favourite