News Forum - UKRAINE UPDATES

[JohnC]

Just now, oldschooler said:

West never threatened world destruction like Soviets. No Equivalence at all. 

Eh? WW2?

Cuba? Takes two

Creating ISIS and terrorists wanting jihad through a badly failed middle Eastern policy?

There will be more. I don't think the west has exactly been a success in achieving world peace in the last 70 years

I'll have to respectfully disagree on this point

[EdwardV]

7 hours ago, KRLMRX said:

The deployment of Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (a few kilometers from mainland Russia) will have almost no effect on Russia's defense capability.

That’s absurd on so many levels. Prior to placing troops in the mountains it was Georgians occupying the land. People who would be hostile to Russians occupying to land. Afterward it’s Russians. That very fact alone makes a huge difference. While there might not be a lot of troops occupying the defensive positions now, they could easily be reinforced quickly long before actually being needed. The high ground is alway preferred in defense, before Russia didn’t have it, now they do. “Almost no effect” - wow. 

[KRLMRX]

6 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Despite some relatively early apparent stumbles by the UK Government, one could cynically say that the population of the UK, like other European countries, will increase as they take in the refugees from the effects of the Russian aggression in the UK.

I am equally sure those people will likely find a greater level of happiness than the current circumstances being forced upon them.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/597818-un-says-more-than-25-million-refugees-have-left-ukraine

Seems some Russians have the same idea.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60624500

you will be surprised, but the same thing has happened in Russia so far. same methods, same result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Russia

 

[EdwardV]

53 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Eh? WW2?

Cuba? Takes two

Creating ISIS and terrorists wanting jihad through a badly failed middle Eastern policy?

There will be more. I don't think the west has exactly been a success in achieving world peace in the last 70 years

The Breton Woods agreement, a purely western endeavor, had created the longest period of overall world peace in history. Were there small localized conflicts yes. But they were just that, small and relatively localized. 
 

As for your examples, Cuba would certainly apply, but at the same time it was never a hot conflict. Does it really prove your point? I’m not sure about the others. WW2 isn’t a fair comparison since that’s the point we are trying to compare against isn’t it? iSIS and sucj were not the creation of the west, no matter how much I would love to blame them on Obama. They were the natural progression from the continued conflict between the two warring parts of Islam. Their objective is the destruction of the other first and foremost. The focus on the west is just a convenient distraction in order to raise money and recruits. However it’s good you bring it up since it’s a perfect example of the small localized conflicts. At no time did it ever threaten to turn into a world ending event. 

[Tim_Melb]

On 3/12/2022 at 7:48 PM, vlad said:

Alavan most on here are just out for fun or cause trouble the thread will soon be locked due to them as usual. This is my last post on this thread because of the jokers. So on the Nuke issue do they not realise we have systems to moniter any nuclear missile sites that are known, the spy's in the sky will give ample warning. We have the capability to counter strike Putin has a big stick but we have a baseball bat that hits harder. On Fighter jets if we finally deploy them I say we as i assume American and Nato forces will have more planes then Russia they would be defeated in days there Air aircraft would be destoyed. Once air superority is established all heavy Russian armour will be destroyed on the ground along with missile sites Apache gunships and A10 tank busters will take them out. This would be over in a week. Putins troops are mostly now conscips due to there losses. So what does he do ? Threatens to use Bio Chem weapons. Unlike Syria this time we wont sit back.All he can do is do what he is doing now thats his MO. Ukraine has withstood what Russia has delivered to them and are beating them back. Once the up to date modern Anti aircrat the west has given Ukranian forces are able to use them they will start hitting them hard and the conscipts won't have the stomach for a fight and will Desert.

You are living in fantasy land. 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

You are living in fantasy land. 

No he is not. If the much vaunted Russian army cannot overcome the Ukraine it has no chance against western forces.

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, EdwardV said:

The Breton Woods agreement, a purely western endeavor, had created the longest period of overall world peace in history. Were there small localized conflicts yes. But they were just that, small and relatively localized. 
 

As for your examples, Cuba would certainly apply, but at the same time it was never a hot conflict. Does it really prove your point? I’m not sure about the others. WW2 isn’t a fair comparison since that’s the point we are trying to compare against isn’t it? iSIS and sucj were not the creation of the west, no matter how much I would love to blame them on Obama. They were the natural progression from the continued conflict between the two warring parts of Islam. Their objective is the destruction of the other first and foremost. The focus on the west is just a convenient distraction in order to raise money and recruits. However it’s good you bring it up since it’s a perfect example of the small localized conflicts. At no time did it ever threaten to turn into a world ending event. 

Excellent points well made

I'm not too knowledgeable regarding the Islam side of things but from were I'm sitting it certainly looked like the west stoked the fires that turned the conflict into what it is today. I doubt we'd have the London tube bombings if we hadn't invaded Iraq etc. This act seemed to alleviate terrorist attacks around the world hence bringing it to the world stage. That was the point I was trying to make. 

As much as the west has tried I struggle to say they're a success story when it comes to world peace. 

Apologies for going off topic

[Tim_Melb]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

No he is not. If the much vaunted Russian army cannot overcome the Ukraine it has no chance against western forces.

If Putin launches his nukes no European country will stand a chance the UK will likely not even get a single bird in the air. The only modern  nuclear equipment the UK has is missiles they bought from the US in the new subs. I don't know the status of the French equipment. But Russia's equipment is very much up to date and their cruise missiles are state of the art probably more advanced than the US. As for the equipment being used by Russia in the Ukraine they are following the standard tactic of using their old out of date munitions where ever possible and holding back their best gear for if and when it's required. The fact is that Russia has ful air superiority in the Ukraine which is why the Ukrainians keep asking NATO for a no fly zone. 

[Smithydog]

44 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

you will be surprised, but the same thing has happened in Russia so far. same methods, same result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Russia

Easy for Russia to get a net increase from Ukraine. Putin simply annexes part of the territory, in this case Crimea and gives them all Russian citizenship!

What next, a claim of 30 million plus increase when he does the same with Ukraine? Numbers often only tell part of a story. Sometimes, you have to look behind the number and see the real reasons. For example, what we are seeing right now:

Current increase for European Countries and UK - the by-product of a humanitarian crisis due to illegal Russian aggression.

Likely increase for Russia - the takeover of an independent country and their states based on false claims .

Somewhat a difference in my opinion. 

[Tim_Melb]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

No he is not. If the much vaunted Russian army cannot overcome the Ukraine it has no chance against western forces.

What makes you think that the Russian plan was for it to be all over in 3 days? Because some stupid media commentators said so. It's been two weeks and the Russians have taken a third of the country. They have been mostly using their old out of date munitions because the can (and it's cheaper). They have full air superiority using older aircraft. In another four weeks it's like his operation will be all over. Realistically that is the best outcome for the world too because I see no way that Putin and his Generals will genuinely come to the negotiating table because the West will not give him what he wants. And if things do start to go badly for him or NATO gets involved militarily then escalating to Nuclear conflict will decimate most of the western world as well as Russia and the Chinese will inherit a dying planet. 

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Excellent points well made

I'm not too knowledgeable regarding the Islam side of things but from were I'm sitting it certainly looked like the west stoked the fires that turned the conflict into what it is today. I doubt we'd have the London tube bombings if we hadn't invaded Iraq etc. This act seemed to alleviate terrorist attacks around the world hence bringing it to the world stage. That was the point I was trying to make. 

As much as the west has tried I struggle to say they're a success story when it comes to world peace. 

Apologies for going off topic

Well things like the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were direct consequences of the 9/11 attack.

The US quickly figured out who and where the attack had been planned and told the Taliban to hand them over. The Taliban refused. The US led an invasion to get them.

9/11 had been such a horrific assault that the west was going to give some good news to some country. Iraq just happened to be the one with its head highest above the parapet. I dont think Hussain had a thing to do with 9/11 but someone was going to get it.

So we can probably trace tit for tat attacks between countries or groups all the way back to when we lived in a cave and someone drank the wrong beer but ultimately it proves nothing.

What we have seen is that since the formation of NATO there has been (predominately) peace within Europe. Now there is a full scale war. Something I thought we would never see but then again I didn't allow for the lunacy of Czar Putin. It seems he is allowed to take control of entire countries or regions in order to protect Russia but NATO is not allowed to expand. 

Look at somewhere like Belarus. A hugely unpopular psychotic leader who remains in power ONLY because he is backed by Czar Putin.

[Rookiescot]

18 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

If Putin launches his nukes no European country will stand a chance the UK will likely not even get a single bird in the air. The only modern  nuclear equipment the UK has is missiles they bought from the US in the new subs. I don't know the status of the French equipment. But Russia's equipment is very much up to date and their cruise missiles are state of the art probably more advanced than the US. As for the equipment being used by Russia in the Ukraine they are following the standard tactic of using their old out of date munitions where ever possible and holding back their best gear for if and when it's required. The fact is that Russia has ful air superiority in the Ukraine which is why the Ukrainians keep asking NATO for a no fly zone. 

IF Czar Putin is allowed to launch his nukes retaliation will be virtually instant. There are many systems on both sides to try and detect when missiles are being readied. Its a fact with these kinds of weapons you dont just press a button. Both sides can essentially see what states of readiness the other is in. They can tell when the other side has ramped up and will have behaved the same.

Russia does not have air superiority. It has air dominance. Russian jets are still being shot down. Is that by aircraft or land based missiles? I dont know.

Russia has not used its old or out of date weapons. It deployed its best equipped and trained Regiments. Some of which are no longer combat effective due to losses. Re-supply and logistics has always been a weak point in the Russian armed forces. The troops fighting are short of almost everything. Ammunition, fuel, food and replacement troops for those no longer fit to fight. 

Russia needed to win this within a week or face a long drawn war of attrition with troops who are not motivated. This is what they have got. Its going to bleed Russia white. The sanctions are already taking a massive toll. Its now begging China for weapons because its running out.

Its all gone wrong. Even if Czar Putin withdraws his troops tomorrow (he won't or indeed can) there is no outcome that sees Czar Putin not swinging from a rope. 

 

[JohnC]

21 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Well things like the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were direct consequences of the 9/11 attack.

The US quickly figured out who and where the attack had been planned and told the Taliban to hand them over. The Taliban refused. The US led an invasion to get them.

9/11 had been such a horrific assault that the west was going to give some good news to some country. Iraq just happened to be the one with its head highest above the parapet. I dont think Hussain had a thing to do with 9/11 but someone was going to get it.

So we can probably trace tit for tat attacks between countries or groups all the way back to when we lived in a cave and someone drank the wrong beer but ultimately it proves nothing.

What we have seen is that since the formation of NATO there has been (predominately) peace within Europe. Now there is a full scale war. Something I thought we would never see but then again I didn't allow for the lunacy of Czar Putin. It seems he is allowed to take control of entire countries or regions in order to protect Russia but NATO is not allowed to expand. 

Look at somewhere like Belarus. A hugely unpopular psychotic leader who remains in power ONLY because he is backed by Czar Putin.

Exactly my point. That was not justifiable in any way so they made up a massive lie about WMD to try and justify it but basically they invaded Iraq because of nothing more than Americas bruised ego right?

Don't get me started on Blair following them either. 

The west likely does want peace ( I'd hope everyone did) but everywhere they go seem to be making a right mess of it as far as I can see. 

Hopefully they'll get it right in my lifetime. 

Were going massively off topic here so I'll refrain from replying or posting more about it thanks

[Fester]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Eh? WW2?

Cuba? Takes two

Creating ISIS and terrorists wanting jihad through a badly failed middle Eastern policy?

There will be more. I don't think the west has exactly been a success in achieving world peace in the last 70 years

I'll have to respectfully disagree on this point

I think you missed his point. At least the west hasn't tried to move nukes 200 miles away from Russia or announced an order to put Russian nuclear missiles on high alert.   

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Fester said:

I think you missed his point. At least the west hasn't tried to move nukes 200 miles away from Russia or announced an order to put Russian nuclear missiles on high alert.   

Oh OK apologies to oldschooler if I took it the wrong way. 

[Fester]

13 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

IF Czar Putin is allowed to launch his nukes retaliation will be virtually instant. There are many systems on both sides to try and detect when missiles are being readied. Its a fact with these kinds of weapons you dont just press a button. Both sides can essentially see what states of readiness the other is in. They can tell when the other side has ramped up and will have behaved the same.

Russia does not have air superiority. It has air dominance. Russian jets are still being shot down. Is that by aircraft or land based missiles? I dont know.

Russia has not used its old or out of date weapons. It deployed its best equipped and trained Regiments. Some of which are no longer combat effective due to losses. Re-supply and logistics has always been a weak point in the Russian armed forces. The troops fighting are short of almost everything. Ammunition, fuel, food and replacement troops for those no longer fit to fight. 

Russia needed to win this within a week or face a long drawn war of attrition with troops who are not motivated. This is what they have got. Its going to bleed Russia white. The sanctions are already taking a massive toll. Its now begging China for weapons because its running out.

Its all gone wrong. Even if Czar Putin withdraws his troops tomorrow (he won't or indeed can) there is no outcome that sees Czar Putin not swinging from a rope. 

 Agree with most of that but from the early POW VDOs these conscripted kids looked scared sheetless and didn't know why they were in UA, so it's doubtful that they belonged to the best equipped and trained regiments.

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, Fester said:

 Agree with most of that but from the early POW VDOs these conscripted kids looked scared sheetless and didn't know why they were in UA, so it's doubtful that they belonged to the best equipped and trained regiments.

The guy with the beard was irregular forces (probably SPETZNAZ). No normal soldier has hair or indeed facial hair that long. 

Czar Putin virtually wiped out his own special forces trying to take that airport to the NW of Kyiv (sorry have a mental block on its name right now). 

The two either side of him were probably regulars but could well have been cooks or storemen for all we know.

[Fester]

40 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The guy with the beard was irregular forces (probably SPETZNAZ). No normal soldier has hair or indeed facial hair that long. 

Czar Putin virtually wiped out his own special forces trying to take that airport to the NW of Kyiv (sorry have a mental block on its name right now). 

The two either side of him were probably regulars but could well have been cooks or storemen for all we know.

Must have been a difference VDO then. The ones I saw were little more than kids, no beards and shaky as sh1t.

[Dedinbed]

1 hour ago, Tim_Melb said:

If Putin launches his nukes no European country will stand a chance the UK will likely not even get a single bird in the air. The only modern  nuclear equipment the UK has is missiles they bought from the US in the new subs. I don't know the status of the French equipment. But Russia's equipment is very much up to date and their cruise missiles are state of the art probably more advanced than the US. As for the equipment being used by Russia in the Ukraine they are following the standard tactic of using their old out of date munitions where ever possible and holding back their best gear for if and when it's required. The fact is that Russia has ful air superiority in the Ukraine which is why the Ukrainians keep asking NATO for a no fly zone. 

Drama queen .. if Vlad the short feels he has no choice but to use them it will be strategic battlefield lower yield weapons in the escalate to de-escalate scenario in the belief that the west will not up the ante and retaliate beyond that .. 

Russia does not have full air superiority with aircraft as Ukraine's air defences have proven to the point where some airstrikes carried out by Russian aircraft are being launched from Russian airspace for protection .. as has been well documented lately the number of portable SAM systems provided by the west has made the skies above Ukraine a dangerous place to be for Russian planes and helicopters .. 

 

1 hour ago, Tim_Melb said:

What makes you think that the Russian plan was for it to be all over in 3 days? Because some stupid media commentators said so. It's been two weeks and the Russians have taken a third of the country. They have been mostly using their old out of date munitions because the can (and it's cheaper). They have full air superiority using older aircraft. In another four weeks it's like his operation will be all over. Realistically that is the best outcome for the world too because I see no way that Putin and his Generals will genuinely come to the negotiating table because the West will not give him what he wants. And if things do start to go badly for him or NATO gets involved militarily then escalating to Nuclear conflict will decimate most of the western world as well as Russia and the Chinese will inherit a dying planet. 

Why wouldn't you want a lightning war .. the quicker you achieve the objectives the less likely you are to get bogged down .. so getting it over as quickly as possible was always the Russian goal .. and how it played out in the first days supports that with advances into territory with little combined arms support in the hope they carried sufficient resources to overcome any resistance .. but they didn't which as why a lot of those force recon' groups were cut to pieces by the Ukrainian defence as they pushed forward into their territory .. the tactics now have reverted to destroying towns and cities with artillery , rocket and missile fire some of which are up to date munitions along with other hardware including the T90 MBT .. this is after all an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate its armed forces prowess .. No the longer this continues the more likely it will become a war of attrition where tactics seen in Iraq and Afghanistan will be employed whereby the Russian's will try to exert control over built up area's but will have little chance of doing the same with the countryside as highway and road movement will become extremely hazardous from IED's and movement by air will be equally perilous from SAM's .. Russia has tasted once before what is likely to come with their occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's which ultimately lead to them leaving not very gloriously leading to the old USSR as it was then breaking apart not long afterwards .. 

[TiT]

As someone who has not been following the details of this situation very closely, what is the summary of the current state of affairs?  Slow slog pushing through to Kyiv?  

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Dedinbed said:

Drama queen .. if Vlad the short feels he has no choice but to use them it will be strategic battlefield lower yield weapons in the escalate to de-escalate scenario in the belief that the west will not up the ante and retaliate beyond that .. 

Russia does not have full air superiority with aircraft as Ukraine's air defences have proven to the point where some airstrikes carried out by Russian aircraft are being launched from Russian airspace for protection .. as has been well documented lately the number of portable SAM systems provided by the west has made the skies above Ukraine a dangerous place to be for Russian planes and helicopters .. 

Why wouldn't you want a lightning war .. the quicker you achieve the objectives the less likely you are to get bogged down .. so getting it over as quickly as possible was always the Russian goal .. and how it played out in the first days supports that with advances into territory with little combined arms support in the hope they carried sufficient resources to overcome any resistance .. but they didn't which as why a lot of those force recon' groups were cut to pieces by the Ukrainian defence as they pushed forward into their territory .. the tactics now have reverted to destroying towns and cities with artillery , rocket and missile fire some of which are up to date munitions along with other hardware including the T90 MBT .. this is after all an opportunity for Russia to demonstrate its armed forces prowess .. No the longer this continues the more likely it will become a war of attrition where tactics seen in Iraq and Afghanistan will be employed whereby the Russian's will try to exert control over built up area's but will have little chance of doing the same with the countryside as highway and road movement will become extremely hazardous from IED's and movement by air will be equally perilous from SAM's .. Russia has tasted once before what is likely to come with their occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's which ultimately lead to them leaving not very gloriously leading to the old USSR as it was then breaking apart not long afterwards .. 

Sounds very familiar that does

All world leaders are useless ego maniacs who keep making the same mistakes over and over whilst the normal people of the world suffer. 

 

[KRLMRX]

11 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Common @KRLMRX. I have read several of your posts and found them to provide an interesting perspective. But, are you really trying to compare what Stalin did in his tenure to Hoover?

Even Putin has acknowledged the depth of the purges, how wrong they were and seemingly vowing for them never to be repeated.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-purges-idUSL3072723020071030

Hmmm....Considering what Putin is doing now and what he has said, perhaps we can't take him for his words or vows!

with all due respect to Hoover, Stalin did it in all respects - industrialization, raising the standard of living of citizens MULTIPLE times, , victory over Nazism. And what did Hoover do, lead the country to the Great Depression?

Putin is an anti-communist, of course he scolds Stalin.

[vlad]

4 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

If Putin launches his nukes no European country will stand a chance the UK will likely not even get a single bird in the air. The only modern  nuclear equipment the UK has is missiles they bought from the US in the new subs. I don't know the status of the French equipment. But Russia's equipment is very much up to date and their cruise missiles are state of the art probably more advanced than the US. As for the equipment being used by Russia in the Ukraine they are following the standard tactic of using their old out of date munitions where ever possible and holding back their best gear for if and when it's required. The fact is that Russia has ful air superiority in the Ukraine which is why the Ukrainians keep asking NATO for a no fly zone. 

I wouldn't call the javelin anti-air missile an out-of-date piece of kit or a stinger there both laser guided and deadly in the right hands as this Russian Helicopter found out, shot from a handheld javelin.

 

[KRLMRX]

6 hours ago, oldschooler said:

The sooner the better. what a nightmare Russia has been for civilization since 1918 and then stealing nuclear weapon secrets 1947 and almost destroying the world twice in fact over their stupid inhuman dogma. 

Putin said "We don't want a world without Russia" so chances are you won't be able to enjoy this event.

[KRLMRX]

6 hours ago, oldschooler said:

There was never famine in USA. Stalin deliberately murdered the rich peasants by confiscating their grain 20-30 million dead ? Nobody has starved in USA or modern west . 

do not restrain yourself, write "200-300 million killed by Stalin"