|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 16, 2024 6:09:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 16, 2024 8:34:51 GMT
I think I don't completely agree with that. NATO doesn't prevent you doing your own stuff. Vietnam, Suez or Mali didn't get all NATO involved. Everyone talks about Article 5 but often doesn't mention Article 6: mutual defence is only triggered by attacks inside NATO territory ( source). So I don't see how France is stopped. There just needs to be more money for Ukraine, but if the politicians pussy out of that then I'd like to see the French, Polish, British + Nordic air forces covering Ukraine and bombing the crap out of Russian logistics. I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Paul we didn’t need the consent of NATO to liberate the Falklands & its dependencies. Yes there was concern in NATO that we were depleting its North Atlantic anti-submarine capability and this is possibly why we only committed 5 nukes to Op Corporate. 7 remained within NATO including 4 of the latest more capable at the time S boats. Anti submarine frigates were deployed because of the perceived threat from the very capable Argentinian Guppy Class diesel subs. As it happened only 2 of these were sea worthy and one was sunk early in the conflict. The other remained operational and was a nuisance throughout the conflict. The anti submarine frigates were mostly redeployed for Naval Gunfire Support to our troops ashore.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 16, 2024 11:57:17 GMT
I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Paul we didn’t need the consent of NATO to liberate the Falklands & its dependencies. Yes there was concern in NATO that we were depleting its North Atlantic anti-submarine capability and this is possibly why we only committed 5 nukes to Op Corporate. 7 remained within NATO including 4 of the latest more capable at the time S boats. Anti submarine frigates were deployed because of the perceived threat from the very capable Argentinian Guppy Class diesel subs. As it happened only 2 of these were sea worthy and one was sunk early in the conflict. The other remained operational and was a nuisance throughout the conflict. The anti submarine frigates were mostly redeployed for Naval Gunfire Support to our troops ashore. Thanks for that lawrie, not sure that it's relevant to my point but thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 16, 2024 18:54:12 GMT
One of thousands of russian crimes against innocents in occupied Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 16, 2024 19:10:29 GMT
Russia needs to be defeated without triggering nuclear war. Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago.But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself. I think people misjudged. The West couldn't send javelins and stingers, that was a red line. The West couldn't send Soviet heavy equipment, that was a a red line. The West couldn't send Soviet aircraft, that was a red line. The West couldn't send HIMARS, that was a red line. The West couldn't send NATO heavy equipment, that was a red line. The West couldn't send F-16s, that was a red line. The West couldn't send ATACMS, that was a red line. Ukraine couldn't retake Kharkiv and Kherson, that was a red line. Ukraine couldn't launch attacks into russia, that was a red line. Finland and Sweden couldn't join NATO, that was a red line. Ukraine couldn't ship things through the Black Sea without russian permission, that was a red line. Couldn't hit the Kerch Bridge, that was a red line. We self deterred and it escalated this horrible war IMO. Putin is safe even if russia is kicked out of Ukraine, and russian nuclear doctrine doesn't include using weapons for Ukraine. If we bow to threats now, the same arguments tell us to bow again when Putin invades NATO, and then it's titanic bloody war, or be slowly eaten up. Whereas if we help Ukraine win, then Putin won't invade NATO.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 16, 2024 19:42:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 16, 2024 21:33:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 16, 2024 22:53:56 GMT
Um what? Is that saying the missile got stuck in a tube in the submarine or something? 🤔 Bit worrying since Russia's subs are supposedly about the best kit they've got.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 8:10:10 GMT
This must be something like the 7th russian refinery hit in recent weeks?
Fucking amazing work by Ukrainian drone designers, programmers and everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 18:18:36 GMT
Ukraine has hit 12 oil and gas plants so far.
Done some research and it looks like they're only hitting processors. So it's slower or more expensive for russia to get products like petrol and jet fuel but they can still sell crude oil just fine.
Not sure how big a deal is but the flames are pretty.
|
|
|
Post by hcstokie on Mar 17, 2024 19:36:50 GMT
Ukraine has hit 12 oil and gas plants so far. Done some research and it looks like they're only hitting processors. So it's slower or more expensive for russia to get products like petrol and jet fuel but they can still sell crude oil just fine. Not sure how big a deal is but the flames are pretty. Apparently they’re targeting the refineries as they use bespoke (often western made) parts, meaning it could take longer to repair due to the sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 17, 2024 19:53:57 GMT
Exactly ...
|
|
|
Post by Marc01 on Mar 17, 2024 19:54:24 GMT
“Nothing, no air defence?”
“What air defence?”
“The plant is *****!”
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 20:07:08 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Saying you won't ruins it and destroys strategic ambiguity. I still want us to stop Putin before we need boots on the ground. And I'd rather do it in Ukraine than Latvia, Finland or Poland. All the self-deterrence ruined the opportunity to defeat Russia in 2022/23, so now there's a horrendously longer and bloodier war. Let's prepare to help Ukraine win it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 17, 2024 20:09:50 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Exactly, that's the very point, everybody knows that Macron is full of hot air.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 20:12:30 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Exactly, that's the very point, everybody knows that Macron is full of hot air. I guess we'll see. The funding the French put into military stuff + Ukraine aid will be telling.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 20:12:56 GMT
Russia dropped out of the top 5 arms exporters in 2023. Almost all sales were ordered years before the full-scale invasion. They're not getting many people ordering from them now.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 17, 2024 20:28:20 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Saying you won't ruins it and destroys strategic ambiguity. I still want us to stop Putin before we need boots on the ground. And I'd rather do it in Ukraine than Latvia, Finland or Poland. All the self-deterrence ruined the opportunity to defeat Russia in 2022/23, so now there's a horrendously longer and bloodier war. Let's prepare to help Ukraine win it. They don't need to win per se They just need to keep fighting, probably a decade or so, before Russia goes home post Putin That will take continued western support Jets will make a difference when Ukraine gets those
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 17, 2024 20:31:44 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Saying you won't ruins it and destroys strategic ambiguity. I still want us to stop Putin before we need boots on the ground. And I'd rather do it in Ukraine than Latvia, Finland or Poland. All the self-deterrence ruined the opportunity to defeat Russia in 2022/23, so now there's a horrendously longer and bloodier war. Let's prepare to help Ukraine win it. They don't need to win per se They just need to keep fighting, probably a decade or so, before Russia goes home post Putin That will take continued western support Jets will make a difference when Ukraine gets those I'm scared of what could happen in a decade. Things are already changing at an insane rate because of drones. Maybe the world-changing thing will happen next month, or maybe in 7 years. Either way, I don't want it to drag on for a decade because that gives time for russians to make a breakthrough, or politics to go bad. I think it's a bit brighter than that - russia will have a weak spot in the coming 1-2 years that Ukraine could exploit, they just need equipment and ammo to flood in asap to be ready for it. A steady supply of F-16s and long-range missiles is one of the things they need, the Ukrainians I speak to just can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 18, 2024 1:06:17 GMT
You need the opponent to believe that you might do stuff. Saying you won't ruins it and destroys strategic ambiguity. I still want us to stop Putin before we need boots on the ground. And I'd rather do it in Ukraine than Latvia, Finland or Poland. All the self-deterrence ruined the opportunity to defeat Russia in 2022/23, so now there's a horrendously longer and bloodier war. Let's prepare to help Ukraine win it. They don't need to win per se They just need to keep fighting, probably a decade or so, before Russia goes home post Putin That will take continued western support Jets will make a difference when Ukraine gets those
Exactly.
Isn't that a far more logical progression, rather than blowing up the planet forever, just because in 2024 a few humans got impatient?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 18, 2024 1:47:54 GMT
They don't need to win per se They just need to keep fighting, probably a decade or so, before Russia goes home post Putin That will take continued western support Jets will make a difference when Ukraine gets those Exactly. Isn't that a far more logical progression, rather than blowing up the planet forever, just because in 2024 a few humans got impatient?
Well I guess the simplest agreement then is to just arm Ukraine as much as possible as soon as possible. Speed up and send more and they won't need NATO troops. Sadly, it's not guaranteed that'll happen.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 18, 2024 1:57:19 GMT
I don't know how much longer russia will go this hard. I was sure they'd attack hard until their "elections", but now dunno.
If they're confident enough in Trump, then maybe they'll ease off a bit?
Video footage since October shows russia losing about 1,300 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) versus ~220 for Ukraine. Russia could go until 2025, but if Democrats win they'd be fucked because they'd be down to the last load of metal from the soviet stores.
That said, russians are just aggressive so they'll probably keep going hard, they know the window they got from North Korean+Republican aid is still open, and the Ukrainian army is desperately short of ammo.
Some artillery units only received smoke shells ffs.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 18, 2024 15:26:56 GMT
More crap blown up on one of the "quieter" fronts.
This unit is based outside Mariinka. Russia also attacks regularly; Krynky, Robotyne, Novomikhailivka, all around Avdiivka, all around Bakhmut, Bilohorivka, Terny, Makiivka, Kyslivka and Synkivka.
Imagine the scale of this war. It's almost 400 miles to drive from Robotyne in the south to Synkivka in the north.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 19, 2024 11:24:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2024 15:41:03 GMT
Czech president Petr Pavel has good news. European shell production looking solid for next year, and his people found even more shells to buy elsewhere. Portugal has pitched in €100m and now Germany gave €500m. About $2k per shell is still pricy, but down loads from the $7k market price in 2023. The window republicans opened for Putin is narrowing. The next big issues are anti-aircraft missiles and mortar shells.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 19, 2024 15:47:04 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning?
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 19, 2024 16:58:05 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning? I thought he was giving useful context as why Putin invaded. Doesn’t obviously justify it but useful nonetheless
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 19, 2024 19:45:15 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning?
Obviously that's how some people will want to characterise it but if you can see past such simplistic jingoism, he's actually talking a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 20, 2024 9:42:28 GMT
Putin has turned the whole issue of the nuclear deterrent around to his favour imo. For decades bilateral nuclear deterrent kept the peace between NATO and Warsaw pact both side knowing that a nuclear attack would see an immediate response from the other side. But now Putin threatens the nuclear option if NATO attempts to put boots on the ground which would see Russia defeated decisively. The west then looks on and stops short of doing this because of the consequences. This is also motivating North Korea & Iran to rapidly develop their own nuclear capability seeing how it is being used to hold the west to ransom. I don’t know what the answer is, or maybe Putin is bluffing but it’s a brave man who says he is.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 20, 2024 10:57:32 GMT
Putin has turned the whole issue of the nuclear deterrent around to his favour imo. For decades bilateral nuclear deterrent kept the peace between NATO and Warsaw pact both side knowing that a nuclear attack would see an immediate response from the other side. But now Putin threatens the nuclear option if NATO attempts to put boots on the ground which would see Russia defeated decisively. The west then looks on and stops short of doing this because of the consequences. This is also motivating North Korea & Iran to rapidly develop their own nuclear capability seeing how it is being used to hold the west to ransom. I don’t know what the answer is, or maybe Putin is bluffing but it’s a brave man who says he is. Call his bluff if he’s allowed to win we’re slowly fucked If he folds we’re fine If he starts the mutual destruction we’re fucked at least it won’t be slow
|
|