Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,320
As suspected, Russia likely tried it as 'sanitized' as possible but things might get uglier.

 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
Safely say this is not a new cold war but WW3 least the beginnings of.
It won't be a World War unless China and India join in. At the moment, it's just confined to Ukraine and potentially a couple of other spots in north/eastern Europe. I can't see it spreading much beyond that.
 

Sarni

nice guy, unassuming, objective United fan.
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
58,041
Location
Krakow
Saw this on Sky News live. Time for us to step in I think.

Russia's objectives 'not limited to Ukraine' - NATO secretary general
NATO's secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, tells a news conference "the Kremlin's objectives are not limited to Ukraine".

He says Putin is asking for troops to be withdrawn from countries which joined the alliance after 1997, and will use force to achieve its objectives.

He says Europe now has a "new normal", and Russia and Belarus will be "held accountable".
That includes Poland, probably most of all as we have the largest amount of US soldiers here. feck.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
66,457
Location
France
That includes Poland, probably most of all as we have the largest amount of US soldiers here. feck.
You are also the loudest mouths of the lot. :D

PS: I'm trying to brighten your mood.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,320
Marco Rubio is tweeting constantly about the war. Hard not to be cynical, maybe he sees this as an opportunity to boost his profile. Or maybe he just cares about it.

 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
28,490
As suspected, Russia likely tried it as 'sanitized' as possible but things might get uglier.

If they use tos-1 on civilians they just autocreate propaganda for decades to come. Broadcasting the look of the bodies after around the world may actually force nato countries do something, think they are throwing babies in Kuwait moment.
 

Walrus

Oppressed White Male
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
11,175
I have so much respect for him. This guy walks the walk.
It would be funny if it wasnt so sad - the best leaders are the ones who arent career politicians.

Great news. The Ukraine insurgency will hopefully be a thing of legend, emblazoned in many Sabaton songs.

Good news on the AA stuff going to Ukraine from NATO too - air superiority feels like the biggest problem for Ukraine right now. Russia has complete operational freedom as long as they control the skies. They can choose to invade Kyiv, starve them out, or just level the entire city. If Ukraine can force it into a ground, urban-combat style slog, then they could hold out for a long time. Long enough to really give Putin a bloody nose and make his cronies question his strength (and probably, his sanity).

I would say the next ~48 hours are absolutely critical. If Ukraine and Kyiv can hold out for this long, and get these weapons and aid into key positions, they can drag this thing out and make the Russians bleed for it.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
14,764
That includes Poland, probably most of all as we have the largest amount of US soldiers here. feck.
I thought 1997 meant the smaller Balkan states and the Baltics but this actually includes Poland and Czechia. Yeah, this is not happening.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,990
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
It won't be a World War unless China and India join in. At the moment, it's just confined to Ukraine and potentially a couple of other spots in north/eastern Europe. I can't see it spreading much beyond that.
A war between NATO and Russia would most certainly be a world war. That's not going to happen, though. It'll be a cold war, which is bad enough.
 

spiriticon

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
7,575
I fecking hope we have got our air defences at the utmost readiness. Get the RAF defence ready now.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
14,764
There was a lot of talk about weather and the ground becoming too soft for tanks by mid-March. Surely that would make Putin even more desperate for a quick win.

But if he uses those weapons on civilians, there's no coming back. Shame people in Russia won't see the photos unless they go out of their way.
 

KingCavani

New Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
1,264
Marco Rubio is tweeting constantly about the war. Hard not to be cynical, maybe he sees this as an opportunity to boost his profile. Or maybe he just cares about it.

Considering the disdain he shows for American people I find it hard to believe he cares about the Ukrianians. He’s just your typical neo-con hawk. Doesn’t make him wrong about Putin.
 

Skåre Willoch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
4,237
All this stuff about “now is the time for NATO to step up, stop being wimps” is doing my head in.

As a guy enrolled in the army in a NATO country (through mandatory duty until the age of 44), I’m not so sure I’m ready to die just yet.
I simply can’t see any upside at all to start flexing muscle until it’s the actual last resort.
I’m literally scared shitless for the (inevitable?) phone call about “start preparing - war might be coming”, and even more scared if shit actually hits the fan across the entire continent.
I’m not ready to become cannon fodder because of a megalomaniac.
Call me a pussy, it’s fine.
But I imagine a lot of you guys on here are actually in real danger of being called to combat if things escalate properly. And if you answer truly, are you really ready for that? Are you really ready to die? I know I’m not. And that’s a very real and very possible consequence of escalating things.
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
A war between NATO and Russia would most certainly be a world war. That's not going to happen, though. It'll be a cold war, which is bad enough.
A war between NATO and Russia would be a war between NATO and Russia. The rest of the world would stay on the sidelines. Unlike WW1 and WW2, there won't be global empires dragged into the fighting. And there won't be any Asian, African or South American thatres to speak of.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
With civilians being armed the best case is a ceasefire. Worst case we are looking at a repeat of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944.
 

Random Task

WW Lynchpin
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
34,503
Location
Chester
As suspected, Russia likely tried it as 'sanitized' as possible but things might get uglier.

I'm instantly reminded of Putin's very clear threat:

"Whoever tries to hinder us should know that Russia's response will be immediate. And it will lead you to such consequences that you have never encountered in your history."
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,413
I think people are getting tired of "Putin has a point" bollocks, as he embarks on his murderous rampage.
If people throw their toys out at the first suggestion of trying to understand what he is thinking when hes doing this, they will never understand it.
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
31,000
I fecking hope we have got our air defences at the utmost readiness. Get the RAF defence ready now.
The UK and our air defences are at a state of incredibly high alert right now. My nephew has been recalled to be ready to ship out.
 

Polar

Full Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,426
Didn’t Putin talk about sending “Russian peacekeeping forces” :lol:
 

IWat

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
902
The UK and our air defences are at a state of incredibly high alert right now. My nephew has been recalled to be ready to ship out.
I hate to break it, but apart from the Eurofighters, the UK has very little/no air defence. Type 45 destroyer is literally the best air defence we have.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,320
I'm instantly reminded of Putin's very clear threat:

"Whoever tries to hinder us should know that Russia's response will be immediate. And it will lead you to such consequences that you have never encountered in your history."
I never quite knew if one should take such remarks seriously. Could be standard rhetoric to intimidate, rather than actually meaning it.

But I also didn't think Putin would actually go ahead with a full-scale invasion. So I think it's clear we better take those remarks seriously.
 

Droid_Repairs

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2021
Messages
609
I fecking hope we have got our air defences at the utmost readiness. Get the RAF defence ready now.
They couldn't get air superiority over the UK. Not a chance. A combination of range issues and the RAF's technological superiority.

Forgive me for quoting myself, here is something I said about this subject several pages ago. The TLDR is that Russia could not conquer the UK conventionally.

Okay, I'll bite. 1 vs 1 - Britain would stand a much better chance than any other country in Europe. They certainly couldn't invade us. Why? Technological advantage and naval power.

Forget nukes for a moment, because in truth they could annihilate any nation with their stockpile. Britain would launch back regardless, but in that scenario it's NATO vs Russia, not UK vs Russia.

The Royal Navy is objectively and comfortably the most powerful and well equipped navy on the continent. Russia's maritime hardware is largely decrepit, outdated and often in poor state of repair. Their aircraft carrier literally requires a tugboat escort at all times, their submarines are in many cases technological dinosaurs and inferior to ours by every meaningful metric and comparison - and their naval air power is certainly no match for that provided by the RN's new carrier class, backed up by the RAF at shorter range.

This would make a land invasion of the UK very, very difficult. They'd need a huge armada to send tanks or soldiers in any meaningful numbers, and that many targets would constantly be harried and sunk by relentless British air and sea bombardment, their losses at sea would be so catastrophic that it wouldn't be worth even attempting - even from multiple directions, the combined heat they'd face from the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm would make it a non starter. Whatever air carrier power they had would be hopelessly outnumbered and destroyed in early air to air exchanges. They may attempt long-range air patrols from land to provide cover for this 'mega flotilla' but the sheer distance between Russian airbases and the English coast would make this almost impossible in any effective sense, even if all of their fighters were crammed into Kaliningrad, they'd still have to make 2,000 mile round trips 24/7 to provide constant air support at sea, whilst coming up against technologically superior aircraft and better trained pilots.

No, Russia could not 'crush' the UK in any conventional sense. Again, a nuclear war is different - then again, Britain at least has a nuclear deterrent. Regardless, a nuclear exchange with the Russia = NATO vs Russia, so we're not the only ones being crushed.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,702
Location
Hollywood CA
Putin is all in on this, I have a bad feeling he’s willing to take this further than many people think.
When you think about it, what else can he do ? He can't go back after this naked aggression and grovel to be reaccepted into the international fold. He is literally a Salmon swimming upstream to spawn and then die. The invasion of Ukraine is his attempt at spawning.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
13,665
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
They are always ready

Theres always a rapid reaction force Air Land and Sea

Always, it’s nothing new
That is so.
The RAF Typhoon is an excellent air superiority fighter.
But we don't have that many, especially the latest version. Just about 100 I believe. That may sound a lot. But taking account of those in maintenance and repair, or lacking spares and the RAF are down to the minimum necessary.
And the same for the new F35B.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,990
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
A war between NATO and Russia would be a war between NATO and Russia. The rest of the world would stay on the sidelines. Unlike WW1 and WW2, there won't be global empires dragged into the fighting. And there won't be any Asian thatre to speak of.
This discussion is the utmost of semantics, but it would absolutely be a world war. A world war doesn't have to involve everyone, or everywhere. It would involve the majority of military strength in the world, and encompass three continents (technically more, but I doubt French Guyana would see much fighting). It'd be more of a world war than World War 1, for example.

I also wouldn't be so sure the rest of the world would stay on the sidelines. If it's nuclear, all bets are off.
 

Deery

Dreary
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
18,590
All this stuff about “now is the time for NATO to step up, stop being wimps” is doing my head in.

As a guy enrolled in the army in a NATO country (through mandatory duty until the age of 44), I’m not so sure I’m ready to die just yet.
I simply can’t see any upside at all to start flexing muscle until it’s the actual last resort.
I’m literally scared shitless for the (inevitable?) phone call about “start preparing - war might be coming”, and even more scared if shit actually hits the fan across the entire continent.
I’m not ready to become cannon fodder because of a megalomaniac.
Call me a pussy, it’s fine.
But I imagine a lot of you guys on here are actually in real danger of being called to combat if things escalate properly. And if you answer truly, are you really ready for that? Are you really ready to die? I know I’m not. And that’s a very real and very possible consequence of escalating things.
I can totally understand your reasoning, it’s a terrible predicament to be faced with and I’ve thought about it many times. I wouldn’t want to die for a cause that’s not personal to me, but then there’s the saying “Evil only prevails, when good men do nothing”.

Where do you live btw? Wouldn’t want to be facing it either.
 

Rightnr

Wants players fined for winning away.
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
14,764
If people throw their toys out at the first suggestion of trying to understand what he is thinking when hes doing this, they will never understand it.
Please explain to me his viewpoint and what we're missing. Please also include why you think you are qualified to offer this opinion.
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
This discussion is the utmost of semantics, but it would absolutely be a world war. A world war doesn't have to involve everyone, or everywhere. It would involve the majority of military strength in the world, and encompass three continents (technically more, but I doubt French Guyana would see much fighting). It'd be more of a world war than World War 1, for example.

I also wouldn't be so sure the rest of the world would stay on the sidelines. If it's nuclear, all bets are off.
Only from a Euro-centric point of view.

You can't start an argument about semantics and then decry that it's an argument about semantics.