News Forum - Putin sends ‘peacekeeping’ troops to Ukraine after recognising breakaway regions

[Alavan]

1 hour ago, stevenkongju said:

Because why should Ukrainians be able to decide if they want to join NATO when the journalist jailing, opposition leader murdering, Crimea and Georgia invading, polonium poisoning Vladamir Putin can decide for them.

The sheer amount of stupidity and despot excusing on this thread is mind boggling and disheartening.

I agree with your last paragraph. I Russia no journalists are jailed, opposition leaders put in jail or poisoned, no Polonium used.
And I who thought the Crimea was Ukrainian, at least since Nikita Chroutsjev, then head of the USSR, declared so.

[vlad]

5 hours ago, 23RD said:

Well Stardust yes I'm quite an expert on NATO,Europe.and Armies within Europe I've had lots of first hand experiance as for nuclear weapons I'm a qualified NBC/CBNR Instructor so yes I do have a good working knowledge of them to.

Yes Stardust I've on serveral NATO Operations (have you?).

I'm also an expert there Bud UN & NATO Operations (any questions?)

Because they will not act unless the US leads and Joe Biden is far to compromised by Pro Russian Ukrainians and and also The Russian Federation itself to act.

Unlike you Bud I don't need to read about it I can talk from first hand experience.

Yes I seen some of that Conference and Kamala Harris was shocking.

I'm more short,sharpe and to the point Stardust Bud but that's the beauty of having first hand experience Bud my knowledge come's from real life experience not from Google (and you do love to cut and paste from Google Bud).

No but on a serious note Stardust Bud If you need to ask any questions from an expert with first hand, real life experiance of the matter I'll endevour to answer any of your questions.

Why do you call everone Bud. No one in the uk British calls there mates bud it s always mate or hoppo as for the unit well all cap badges are known as Reegimental cap badge not as you say a unit badge. Come on 23rd you have been rumbled.

[vlad]

The APU'S and other vehicles that rolled into Ukraine had their insignia blanked out why?. Is it the Russian infantry attempting to blame separatists to provoke Ukraine into action thus enabling Russia to move in to say we will protect our Nationals in Donetsk?

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

The comment was in response to the notion that Nato forces would destroy the Russians.  That is certainly a possibility however as mentioned there is nothing more dangerous than an opponent who believes they have nothing to lose.  If the Russians were losing you always run the risk they would use nuclear weapons in a desparate attempt to win. 

Not that I disagree with your theory, Russia has always looked at nuclear weapon use differently than the west. However even Russia employing them wouldn't be in an effort to win, but to not loose. Very different. The problem for Russia is the fact the west has no need to invade their territory in order to win. All the west has to do is chew up the Russian armed forces and push them back a little. Let nature take it's course after that. This isn't the 80s when the Big Red Machine was fearsome, in many areas twice as large as NATO. Today NATO is larger and more modern (and that not even counting US participation). Part of that is from old Warsaw Pack nations now belonging to NATO. However much of it's from the fact Russia is in the last stages of a complete demographic collapse. By 2025 they will have half as many draft age men as they did in just 2015. It's scary how fast their population is aging, and how low their birth rate dropped. The generation behind the one currently under arms is too small to rebuild even the existing size of their army. A war with NATO would be the Russian Army's last war (and not in a good way). 

[Stonker]

31 minutes ago, vlad said:

The APU'S and other vehicles that rolled into Ukraine had their insignia blanked out why?. Is it the Russian infantry attempting to blame separatists to provoke Ukraine into action thus enabling Russia to move in to say we will protect our Nationals in Donetsk?

They did exactly the same thing in Chechnaya - ostensibly it's to make it harder to identify units, but it's also apparently so that individuals can't be identified if they do something wrong, like shooting down the odd plane.

[23RD]

46 minutes ago, vlad said:

Why do you call everone Bud

I'm from South Wales Bud were all Bud,Buddy or Mush where I'm from.

 

47 minutes ago, vlad said:

hoppo

Is that TA Ted for Oppo?

 

48 minutes ago, vlad said:

Reegimental c

Is that meant to be Regiment? As in Regiment Headress?

If you've served in The British Army Vlad Bud or any other branch of HM Forces PM me Bud easy to clarify if your genuine or another Walt on this Forum. 

[23RD]

2 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

jailing them,

What like Canada and The US ?

 

2 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

manipulating you own nations constitution to stay in power

Definitely like Canada this week. 

[23RD]

49 minutes ago, vlad said:

The APU'S

Don't you mean APC's Vlad Bud just to correct you on the correct terminology. 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Alavan said:

Polish people hate Russians, since long time. And it goes the other way also. They are nationalistic, and certainly not Russian minded.
For a common history, google what happened in Katyn in 1940. In WWII the Polish fought together with the UK, there were Polish infantrists there and even a Polish squadron in the RAF. None with the Russians.
And as Poland is a NATO member, an attack on Poland by Russia would start a war between all NATO members and Russia.


 

In the Warsaw uprising in 1944, the Polish Resistance attacked the Germans and the Russians held up their advance on the Germans in order to allow the Germans to massacre most of the resistance. The Russian philosophy was that they were quite happy for Germans to murder any resistance that Russia might have to wipe out later on. 

Of course, the Russian's also wanted payback for the their failure to conquer Poland following their failed invasion of 1920 in which the Poles gave Russia a beating. In 1939, the Russians had no problem in colluding with the Nazis in dividing Poland, which in turn led to the Katyn Forest Massacre of the entire Polish officer class in 1940. 

[Stonker]

19 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Not that I disagree with your theory, Russia has always looked at nuclear weapon use differently than the west. However even Russia employing them wouldn't be in an effort to win, but to not loose. Very different. The problem for Russia is the fact the west has no need to invade their territory in order to win. All the west has to do is chew up the Russian armed forces and push them back a little. Let nature take it's course after that. This isn't the 80s when the Big Red Machine was fearsome, in many areas twice as large as NATO. Today NATO is larger and more modern (and that not even counting US participation). Part of that is from old Warsaw Pack nations now belonging to NATO. However much of it's from the fact Russia is in the last stages of a complete demographic collapse. By 2025 they will have half as many draft age men as they did in just 2015. It's scary how fast their population is aging, and how low their birth rate dropped. The generation behind the one currently under arms is too small to rebuild even the existing size of their army. A war with NATO would be the Russian Army's last war (and not in a good way). 

It isn't the 80's for NATO either.

The British Army, for example, is way under half the size it was then and it still can't recruit adequately and is considerably worse equipped and organised now for a conventional war than it was then - and even then it could only manage GW1 by stripping other units of everything from padres to medics.

Neither side are that 'fearsome' any more.

[KT50]

The USA is void of leadership.  Russia and China know this.  Russia knows no one is going to stop it.  China might give a bit more pause before invading Taiwan, due to the amount of money made from the USA, via manufacturing, agriculture, finance, etc.  However, as an American, I have zero faith in the idiots in charge at this point.  China could take over Taiwan and Biden would be left to wonder if he remembered to put on his underwear this morning. 

[EdwardV]

18 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It isn't the 80's for NATO either.

The British Army, for example, is way under half the size it was then and it still can't recruit adequately and is considerably worse equipped and organised now for a conventional war than it was then - and even then it could only manage GW1 by stripping other units of everything from padres to medics.

Neither side are that 'fearsome' any more.

Beside the fact I never claimed NATO was fearsome, just that they are now larger than the Russian army. That and no one uses the British regular army as a measuring stick since the 50s if not before. The fact remains the numbers have flipped. In the 80s, the Red Army dwarfed NATO in everything but air power. Not only was it much larger, much of it's equipment on average was more modern. They had some serious issues with command and logistics, but it's shear size meant NATO was a mere speed bump. That's not the case anymore. When the USSR collapsed, their armed forces rotted away from the inside and outside. At the same time most NATO countries cashed in their cold war victory dividend by downsizing their armies. Russia has only recently begun modernizing and slowly at that. Luckily for them, Putin slashed the size of the army in order to redirect more money to weapons upgrades. For example, the 190K troops around Ukraine are estimated to be 2/3rds of all of Russia's maneuver combat battalions. That's shocking went you really think about it. At the same time, NATO is now larger in most everything from number of combat troops all the way through air power. Is it double the size, no, but it doesn't have to be either since it's designed and would be used mostly for defense. You don't attack a larger and more modern force and expect to win. Certainly not when doing so in their back yard. Of course this premise was based on the idea of Russia attacking the Baltics and Poland. Not sure they get out of Ukraine with a large enough army to attempt attacking NATO, but that's a different topic. 

[Stonker]

21 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

Beside the fact I never claimed NATO was fearsome, just that they are now larger than the Russian army. That and no one uses the British regular army as a measuring stick since the 50s if not before. The fact remains the numbers have flipped. In the 80s, the Red Army dwarfed NATO in everything but air power. Not only was it much larger, much of it's equipment on average was more modern. They had some serious issues with command and logistics, but it's shear size meant NATO was a mere speed bump. That's not the case anymore. When the USSR collapsed, their armed forces rotted away from the inside and outside. At the same time most NATO countries cashed in their cold war victory dividend by downsizing their armies. Russia has only recently begun modernizing and slowly at that. Luckily for them, Putin slashed the size of the army in order to redirect more money to weapons upgrades. For example, the 190K troops around Ukraine are estimated to be 2/3rds of all of Russia's maneuver combat battalions. That's shocking went you really think about it. At the same time, NATO is now larger in most everything from number of combat troops all the way through air power. Is it double the size, no, but it doesn't have to be either since it's designed and would be used mostly for defense. You don't attack a larger and more modern force and expect to win. Certainly not when doing so in their back yard. Of course this premise was based on the idea of Russia attacking the Baltics and Poland. Not sure they get out of Ukraine with a large enough army to attempt attacking NATO, but that's a different topic. 

As you say, we're going a long way off topic, but I think you're massively over-rating NATO's capabilities and you only have to see how overstretched they've been in the last 20 years and the orbats to see the issues in terms of conventional warfare and the lack of commonality - few are organised or seriously capable of it now.

As for being 'organised and used mainly for defence', that's not much use when you're not defending!

... and I still can't understand how this has come round to Russia potentially attacking Poland.

Completely lost by that one!

As you say, though, going way off topic.

[JohninDublin]

4 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

I'd say invading your neighbors, poisoning political opponents or jailing them, having journalists assassinated and manipulating you own nations constitution to stay in power for 20+ years is a smidge worse that mask mandates and restrictions on business to address a public health concern.

For those people who disagree with you, I'd like to hear when Canada (or the US) abandoned free speech, due process and free and fair elections? 

[EdwardV]

12 minutes ago, Stonker said:

and I still can't understand how this has come round to Russia potentially attacking Poland.

 

That was the original diversion, someone pointing out Russia would be crushed by NATO if they attacked the Baltics. Of course you can't really attack the Baltics without cutting them off from the rest of NATO first and that's done at the Suwalki gap ... which resides in Poland. 

Of course there is also the question of why is Russia attacking the Ukraine in the first place. You run down that particular rabbit hole and end up in Poland too. It's probably why Poland has begun to massively upgrade it's military hardware over these last half dozen years. They just bought 250 M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 tanks from the US this week. They expect to start taking delivery late this year with the last of them in 2024. That's about the same time they start taking delivery of some 34 F-35s they bought back in 2020. The eastern NATO members have been rearming and increasing the size of their armies for better part of a decade now. It's the western ones that have only recently seen the light (France excepted). 

[vlad]

2 hours ago, EdwardV said:

Not that I disagree with your theory, Russia has always looked at nuclear weapon use differently than the west. However even Russia employing them wouldn't be in an effort to win, but to not loose. Very different. The problem for Russia is the fact the west has no need to invade their territory in order to win. All the west has to do is chew up the Russian armed forces and push them back a little. Let nature take it's course after that. This isn't the 80s when the Big Red Machine was fearsome, in many areas twice as large as NATO. Today NATO is larger and more modern (and that not even counting US participation). Part of that is from old Warsaw Pack nations now belonging to NATO. However much of it's from the fact Russia is in the last stages of a complete demographic collapse. By 2025 they will have half as many draft age men as they did in just 2015. It's scary how fast their population is aging, and how low their birth rate dropped. The generation behind the one currently under arms is too small to rebuild even the existing size of their army. A war with NATO would be the Russian Army's last war (and not in a good way). 

Edward we have 3 Nuclear Trident Submarines 1 of which is on patrol 24-7 Russia can forget thinking  about nuking anyone. The only worry is if China backs the Russians and aids them against the west.

[EdwardV]

1 hour ago, vlad said:

Edward we have 3 Nuclear Trident Submarines 1 of which is on patrol 24-7 Russia can forget thinking  about nuking anyone. The only worry is if China backs the Russians and aids them against the west.

 

The thought is Russians look at tactical nukes differently, not strategic ones. No doubt they wouldn't consider lobbing them toward London, Paris or Washington DC. However if push came to shove, they might drop one on battlefield. At least that was NATO's thinking, not sure if it's changed. Of course you open Pandora's box if that were to happen. 

As for China, they have already taken a step back from Russia. They said today they believe in national sovereignty and diplomacy. Buzz words that will not make Moscow happy. At best China and Russia are friends of convenience , not strategic allies. At worse they are historical enemies. China isn't in a position to help Russia against the west, not without wrecking their economy in the process. 

[Faraday]

There is way to much bickering, sniping & goading on this thread.

Are some of you gentlemen unable to have a reasonable discussion, without arguing?

Moderator

[AussieBob]

10 hours ago, oldschooler said:

NATO next move is known. Crippling Economic Sanctions on Russia.

NATO will never actually admit Ukraine

NATO opened the door to possible Ukraine admission in 2008 after Putin invaded Georgia. Ukraine just will never qualify….. Putin knows this.

NATO has simply admitted qualified Free Nations bordering and formerly occupied by Russia, who naturally want that protection. Nothing Complex.

NATO will obliterate Putins forces if they enter Poland or Estonia….

You could be right - but you could also be wrong.  In order:

Russia will feel very little (same as all the other times - PR crap).

Maybe - maybe not. If they 'give up' those parts annexed, they can be admitted.  Ask yourself this:  Why did the President of Ukraine suddenly make a statement just before the occupation that 'Ukraine will never give up anything to anybody'. I reckon because he refused to accept any 'deal' being discussed inside NATO whereby Ukraine could enter NATO (less those other States which go to Russia).

Irrelevant opinion IMO.

NATO claimed this - but they did a lot more. For a start they broke the agreements put in place after 1991 that they would not do that. Russia agreed to those States freedoms on the basis they were a 'buffer' zone between them and NATO. 

Rubbish unless USA agrees to get fully involved and provides a huge amount of miltary equipment and troops - far bigger than that provided for Ukraine.  PS - many reasons why not - one of them = China. another one of them = politics. Mid terms coming up this year - Putin picked the right time to take action?

[BigHewer]

Hi folks,

Several off-topic posts removed. Just a reminder that the topic of this thread is: “Putin sends ‘peacekeeping’ troops to Ukraine after recognising breakaway regions”.

Some tangential discussion is fine, but let’s not wander too far off the forest path. It’s dangerous in there; the bears are coming out of hibernation.

Regards,

Moderator

 

[EdwardV]

20 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

For a start they broke the agreements put in place after 1991 that they would not do that. Russia agreed to those States freedoms on the basis they were a 'buffer' zone between them and NATO. 

There is a saying: "If it's not in writing, it never happen". Fact is the signed agreement never included any restrictions on expansion. Was there a verbal promise? It sure seems like US Secretary of State Baker made one, but he never had the authority to do so from President Bush (and got dressed down for doing so afterward - its rumored). Does Russia have an axe to grind, I would probably say yes. They sure acted as if it was so almost right off the bat and every since. This isn't some recent made up nine dashed line story, Russia has been complaining about the broken agreement since the 90s. Not sure that's justification for attacking a sovereign nation, probably not. 

[Freeduhdumb]

Has Russia invaded Ukraine?

The answer, for anyone who has been truly paying attention beyond the MSM, is NO. Ukraine was already invaded and has been occupied since 2014. Let us not forget, an invasion by any other name is still an invasion... what has been the outcome of the west's regime change operation, aka Coup de Tat, back in 2014? The United States has openly admitted that it overthrew the sovereign government of the Ukraine. You had U.S. senators like John McCain and Victoria Nuland on stage in Kiev instigating and inciting the Euromaidan. The United States has openly admitted pumping 5 billion dollars into the Ukrainian political system. It's been one color revolution after then next in the region and beyond, the typical sophisticated campaign of the American brand promulgated by marketing strategies by NGO's et.al. And what has Ukraine gotten for their trouble's... more corrupt and an even worse economy. I suspect those in the Donbass, the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, like the Crimea, are happy to finally see Putin backing them. Russia will undoubtedly bring this region out of its constant war torn status since the West invaded in 2014. Let us not forget, the Minsk agreements have never been honored by the west. The current Minsk II agreements by all sides of this conflict have never been honored by the west. What we are now seeing is a last ditch effort by the Biden Regime, to suck Russia into further conflict. My contacts within the OSCE have informed me that within the last few days, the Ukrainian side of the contact line within the Donbass have significantly intensified their shelling of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, and as an act, that Russia has stated all along would do, is they have sent in advisors to assist in an effort to prevent further conflict, not create more. Let us be clear, it is the initial invasion by the west in 2014, that has clearly failed, coupled with the failure to fully implement the Minsk II agreements that have brought the situation to this point. Russia all along has been working to stabilize Ukraine as a necessary buffer state to the ever encroaching NATO expansion on its borders. 

[AussieBob]

11 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

Because why should Ukrainians be able to decide if they want to join NATO when the journalist jailing, opposition leader murdering, Crimea and Georgia invading, polonium poisoning Vladamir Putin can decide for them.

The sheer amount of stupidity and despot excusing on this thread is mind boggling and disheartening.

I agree with your last paragraph - and your first paragraph is an example.

Learn the history of Ukraine - most importantly from when the President was ousted in a violent coup by 'NATO basked' dissidents.  Then your comments will not come across as mind boggling and disheartening to those that do not agree with your opinions.  

 

[AussieBob]

11 hours ago, 23RD said:

Totally agree stevenkongiu but I  think what a lot of OP's are saying is are Western Leaders any better than Putin? Look at The US over the last 12 months and Canada over the last few weeks for a classic example of an authoritarian regime. 

Can we honestly say there any worse that Putin?.

Very well said.  And what is clear is that the 'emotional' ones are going too far as usual - putting forward their passionate and vitriolic opinions as if they are facts - both sides - but mainly Putin haters.

[AussieBob]

11 hours ago, stevenkongju said:

I forget if we are allowed to post youtube videos, but here we go. If the moderator takes it down, I understand.

The Kenyan representative summed up the situation very well.

LOL.  A Diplomat saying that 'diplomatic channels' were the best solution - ROFLOL.  If Diplomacy worked there would not have been a civil war in Ukraine since 2014 - and China and Nth Korea would behave - and on and on and on.  Plus -0 he has overlooked that Ukraine was not 'divided up' by Empires once - it has been taken over and divided up several times over the last century.  If the UN actual ever solved anything, then the Pope's calls for 'world peace' would actually make a difference - they dont.  The UN should have been disbanded decades ago - it if full of useless Diplomats and Bureacrats and they serve very little purpose other than to grow their own 'business' and to facilitate the imposition of 'centralised policies' on other Nations. China and USA and Russia just ignore them when it suits them - which is most of the time. The UN is the ultimate epitome of the recent ASEAN junket - talking heads making themselves feel good (virtue signalling) by giving speeches (like this bloke) - but doing nothing worth all the wasted expense and time involved.