Ukraine

[Countryfox]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

NATO rules prevent countries joining until they have resolved territorial disputes.

 

20 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

 ... so there’s no way that will happen before this conflict is either resolved or is in a stalemate position.  

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

4 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

 

Yes, I saw that and realise that you weren’t suggesting it would happen, but I was just pointing out that it’s actually contrary to NATO’s rules for entry so is out of the question. I believe Zelensky acknowledged this when putting in the application.

[Countryfox]

Right little bunch of rascals those Ruskies ..  

 

 

[kenny]

6 hours ago, Countryfox said:

Right little bunch of rascals those Ruskies ..  

 

 

There is a lot of this type of social media post coming out of Ukraine. I wonder how many will turn out to be true and how many are just propaganda.

[Sly]

I don’t see how the ground war continues for much longer, as once late autumn and winter kicks in, the ground movements will slow down. That will allow Russia to restock and build back ammunition supplies. They’ll just be attempting to stop the push back. We could then see another surge from Russia in early spring.  This back and forth could carry on for a generation, or until we get some agreed form of ceasefire. The world won’t acknowledge the areas that have illegally been annexed by Russia. 
 

Ukraine won’t be able to join NATO until this conflict is resolved I’d imagine. 
 

From a Russian point of view, how do they see the likes of Germany and the United Kingdom support Ukraine? If training is being provided to Ukrainian troops, how does Russia feel about that? France seems to have distanced itself from this.  
 

Unless Putin has full autonomy, which feels unlikely, then he’d be signalling the end of Russia by firing any form of nuclear weapon. You would like to think that it would need more than one crazy person to fire such a weapon. 
 

If he were to fire, then I‘d like to think NATO would look to assassinate Putin first, rather than respond with nuclear escalation to save the lives of millions of citizens and potential civilisation itself. 
 

Also, let’s be honest, the only reason NATO hasn’t rolled into Russia / Ukraine directly, is the fear of nuclear war. Without that fear, with what we’ve seen of the poor Russian setup and tactical approach, they could have been swamped. 

[MPH]

4 hours ago, Sly said:

I don’t see how the ground war continues for much longer, as once late autumn and winter kicks in, the ground movements will slow down. That will allow Russia to restock and build back ammunition supplies. They’ll just be attempting to stop the push back. We could then see another surge from Russia in early spring.  This back and forth could carry on for a generation, or until we get some agreed form of ceasefire. The world won’t acknowledge the areas that have illegally been annexed by Russia. 
 

Ukraine won’t be able to join NATO until this conflict is resolved I’d imagine. 
 

From a Russian point of view, how do they see the likes of Germany and the United Kingdom support Ukraine? If training is being provided to Ukrainian troops, how does Russia feel about that? France seems to have distanced itself from this.  
 

Unless Putin has full autonomy, which feels unlikely, then he’d be signalling the end of Russia by firing any form of nuclear weapon. You would like to think that it would need more than one crazy person to fire such a weapon. 
 

If he were to fire, then I‘d like to think NATO would look to assassinate Putin first, rather than respond with nuclear escalation to save the lives of millions of citizens and potential civilisation itself. 
 

Also, let’s be honest, the only reason NATO hasn’t rolled into Russia / Ukraine directly, is the fear of nuclear war. Without that fear, with what we’ve seen of the poor Russian setup and tactical approach, they could have been swamped. 

Interesting.

 

 

it was late winter when the war started wasn’t it? It was supposedly a major reason why the Russians didn’t have  an effective supply line - the bad weather and conditions… supply trucks getting stuck, unable to refuel their tanks, ect..   

 

I propose that the harsh wether would make it even more isolating for the Russian troops fighting away from home and be even more damaging to their morale than it is currently. I’d suggest the only thing more demoralizing than losing a war  and watching your ‘ comrades’ drop like flies is to have all that happening  in freezing conditions..

[MPH]

5 hours ago, Sly said:

I don’t see how the ground war continues for much longer, as once late autumn and winter kicks in, the ground movements will slow down. That will allow Russia to restock and build back ammunition supplies. They’ll just be attempting to stop the push back. We could then see another surge from Russia in early spring.  This back and forth could carry on for a generation, or until we get some agreed form of ceasefire. The world won’t acknowledge the areas that have illegally been annexed by Russia. 
 

Ukraine won’t be able to join NATO until this conflict is resolved I’d imagine. 
 

From a Russian point of view, how do they see the likes of Germany and the United Kingdom support Ukraine? If training is being provided to Ukrainian troops, how does Russia feel about that? France seems to have distanced itself from this.  
 

Unless Putin has full autonomy, which feels unlikely, then he’d be signalling the end of Russia by firing any form of nuclear weapon. You would like to think that it would need more than one crazy person to fire such a weapon. 
 

If he were to fire, then I‘d like to think NATO would look to assassinate Putin first, rather than respond with nuclear escalation to save the lives of millions of citizens and potential civilisation itself. 
 

Also, let’s be honest, the only reason NATO hasn’t rolled into Russia / Ukraine directly, is the fear of nuclear war. Without that fear, with what we’ve seen of the poor Russian setup and tactical approach, they could have been swamped. 

Interesting.

 

 

it was late winter when the war started wasn’t it? It was supposedly a major reason why the Russians didn’t have  an effective supply line - the bad weather and conditions… supply trucks getting stuck, unable to refuel their tanks, ect..   

 

I propose that the harsh wether would make it even more isolating for the Russian troops fighting away from home and be even more damaging to their morale than it is currently. I’d suggest the only thing more demoralizing than losing a war  and watching your ‘ comrades’ drop like flies is to have all that happening  in freezing conditions..

[st albans fox]

I think that if it starts going more and more wrong for putin and control of crimea (and the other areas under Russian control pre invasion) comes under question, he will straight threaten to use a tactical nuke to drive a peace deal. 
 

this won’t be public but zelensky will come under strong diplomatic pressure to do that deal.  and not becoming a NATO member will be part of the settlement . 

 

how long this takes isn’t clear. Putin will not allow Russia to lose.  And the reality is that most of this is down to the inertia shown by the west over the six years prior to end 2021. if you don’t face up to a bully then they will take advantage. 

[Dahnsouff]

Putin humiliated by Orbn as he unveils energy plan to slash Russian gas imports to 'zero' | Science | News | Express.co.uk

 

Not sure how true this, but it is not a good look for Putin if true.

[ian__marshall]

Interesting to see a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry say Russia remains "fully committed" to the principle of never allowing a nuclear war to be fought. 

 

Don't know what to make of this. Either it's complete BS to lure everyone into a false sense of security, Putin's coming under pressure/being threatened domestically and he's trying to keep people onside, someone internally has gone rogue and is trying to topple him, or another global leader who so far has abstained from challenging Putin has put a call in and told him to wind his neck in. 

Edited 6 October 2022 by ian__marshall

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Interesting to see a spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry say Russia remains "fully committed" to the principle of never allowing a nuclear war to be fought. 

 

Don't know what to make of this. Either it's complete BS to lure everyone into a false sense of security, Putin's coming under pressure/being threatened domestically and he's trying to keep people onside, someone internally has gone rogue and is trying to topple him, or another global leader who so far has abstained from challenging Putin has put a call in and told him to wind his neck in. 

Unless the point being made is that you use your nuclear weapons to take out an opponant before he has chance to use theirs, therefore preventing a nuclear war, bit like blowing up Leicester to prevent anyone catching the next strain of covid

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Unless the point being made is that you use your nuclear weapons to take out an opponant before he has chance to use theirs, therefore preventing a nuclear war, bit like blowing up Leicester to prevent anyone catching the next strain of covid

Everyone serious with nuclear weapons has second strike capability these days, so taking out the nuclear arsenal (or the ordering authority) of an opponent in a way that they cannot respond to is no longer possible.

[Countryfox]

Good lads ! ..  doing their bit to keep a sustainable conveyor belt of cannon fodder for Mad Vlads ‘it’s not a war’ war going ..  

 

 

[Countryfox]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Everyone serious with nuclear weapons has second strike capability these days, so taking out the nuclear arsenal (or the ordering authority) of an opponent in a way that they cannot respond to is no longer possible.

I’m sorry Mr Chuckles but unless your post starts with a ‘That’s true but’ or a ‘However’ then I refuse to read it ..  

 

Someone may have hacked your account !!  

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

I’m sorry Mr Chuckles but unless your post starts with a ‘That’s true but’ or a ‘However’ then I refuse to read it ..  

 

Someone may have hacked your account !!  

I like to think I'm diplomatic about pointing out blatant errata.

 

Mostly.

[Countryfox]

Here's one for you Mac @leicsmac ...   I know we can all keep finding quotes from 'experts' that contradict but this chap, Con Coughlin, has just spent the week at a conference with some of the world's leading military thinkers considering the implications of the Ukraine conflict and how the West should deal with similar threats in the future.  Personally, I still think he will try and throw thousands more 'soldiers' into the fray (nobody dare tell him they won't be up to it), and also tout more weaponry (such as the Iranian kamikaze drones which appear to be very effective) from other autocratic regimes.   

 

Hopefully you'll sleep a bit easier matey ..  

 

 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Here's one for you Mac @leicsmac ...   I know we can all keep finding quotes from 'experts' that contradict but this chap, Con Coughlin, has just spent the week at a conference with some of the world's leading military thinkers considering the implications of the Ukraine conflict and how the West should deal with similar threats in the future.  Personally, I still think he will try and throw thousands more 'soldiers' into the fray (nobody dare tell him they won't be up to it), and also tout more weaponry (such as the Iranian kamikaze drones which appear to be very effective) from other autocratic regimes.   

 

Hopefully you'll sleep a bit easier matey ..  

 

 

I think he's absolutely right that use of tactical weapons wouldn't actually help Putin that much in the Ukraine theatre alone in terms of destroying their ability to fight.

 

I do wonder though if this guy has considered the idea that Putin, in the face of suffering that "total and humiliating defeat" that would cost him his freedom or his life or his country its autonomy...would instead warm up his strategic nuclear missiles and ready them to fire at every major Western city? In his eyes, he would have nothing else left to lose, after all - why not do it?

 

This analysis is accurate but incomplete IMO.

[Countryfox]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think he's absolutely right that use of tactical weapons wouldn't actually help Putin that much in the Ukraine theatre alone in terms of destroying their ability to fight.

 

I do wonder though if this guy has considered the idea that Putin, in the face of suffering that "total and humiliating defeat" that would cost him his freedom or his life or his country its autonomy...would instead warm up his strategic nuclear missiles and ready them to fire at every major Western city? In his eyes, he would have nothing else left to lose, after all - why not do it?

 

This analysis is accurate but incomplete IMO.

We'll discuss that in the bunker ...     we'll have plenty of time ..  

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, Countryfox said:

We'll discuss that in the bunker ...     we'll have plenty of time ..  

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63167947

 

Personally I think 1983 was closer, but here's hoping we all don't get into a position where that comparison continues to be seriously made.

[LCFCCHRIS]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63167947

 

Personally I think 1983 was closer, but here's hoping we all don't get into a position where that comparison continues to be seriously made.

What a quote -"To allow, in thoughts and words, the possibility of a nuclear conflict is a sure step to allowing it in reality."

 

For the Ukrainians this is life and death, having a home or no home anyway, so they will not stop unless a very favourable deal comes their way imo. I also doubt they'd do a deal that completely rejects the chance of NATO, after all, what's to stop Russia learning it's lessons and coming back again.

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

What a quote -"To allow, in thoughts and words, the possibility of a nuclear conflict is a sure step to allowing it in reality."

 

For the Ukrainians this is life and death, having a home or no home anyway, so they will not stop unless a very favourable deal comes their way imo. I also doubt they'd do a deal that completely rejects the chance of NATO, after all, what's to stop Russia learning it's lessons and coming back again.

 

Quite.

 

WRT the second paragraph, it's going to be difficult to reach a deal that gives the Ukrainians what they deserve while not pushing buttons that could lead to catastrophic escalation on the Russian side, but it's got to be done. The diplomats will have to be at the top of their game.

[st albans fox]

how much fall out is there from a tactical nuclear weapon ? 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

how much fall out is there from a tactical nuclear weapon ? 

That depends on a lot of factors - the type of weapon, the yield, the prevailing wind etc.

[st albans fox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

That depends on a lot of factors - the type of weapon, the yield, the prevailing wind etc.

I’m thinking about wind and the knock on effects to Eastern Europe or indeed the ‘motherland’