• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)

Status
Not open for further replies.

APH said:
I don't think they'd look to take the whole of Ukraine, at least initially anyway. There's alot of talk that they'd stop at the Dnieper river.
Click to expand...

It might not be as easy as they think and they end up getting pushed back. The army and navy has also been known to mutiny when things aren’t going well for them historically.
 
Alcoholic_Author said:
Consider a European war effort that contains the different nations, some will naturally be dissenting, it will cause political strife and a bogged down bureaucracy and if Germany/France override protocols due to necessity it causes further break downs in a war effort. Europe cannot fight effectively against a major power for these reasons.
Click to expand...
Europe is a major power. We train collectively to a very high end, and we operate together in some nasty places already.

I suspect media footage of mass casualties and huge numbers of refugees heading west will focus any wavering minds in government - both here and on the continent.

The Germans (understandably) have a reticence towards military action, but their fighting capability shouldn’t be underestimated.

It won’t come to that though. The Ukrainians have been training for this since 2014, have been soaking up training from us, the US, and the Canadians, and have been reinforced with a massive amount of anti-armour weapons systems. They’ve got huge amounts of land to trade in defensive actions and will make this a very bloody and costly venture for any invading force. Have a look at the huge cost in personnel the red army paid to drive the Germans to the gates of Berlin; those lessons still apply.
 
China has never really been an offensive military power. Always concentrated on defence and not too successfully against Japan during ww2.
 
Hammy said:
Europe is a major power. We train collectively to a very high end, and we operate together in some nasty places already.

I suspect media footage of mass casualties and huge numbers of refugees heading west will focus any wavering minds in government - both here and on the continent.

The Germans (understandably) have a reticence towards military action, but their fighting capability shouldn’t be underestimated.

It won’t come to that though. The Ukrainians have been training for this since 2014, have been soaking up training from us, the US, and the Canadians, and have been reinforced with a massive amount of anti-armour weapons systems. They’ve got huge amounts of land to trade in defensive actions and will make this a very bloody and costly venture for any invading force. Have a look at the huge cost in personnel the red army paid to drive the Germans to the gates of Berlin; those lessons still apply.
Click to expand...

I feel like my response would just be repeating my previous points. Europe hasn’t had any real conflict since ww2, flying half way around the world to drop bombs or station troops is an operation and not comparable to a real military conflict where your nation risks being bombed itself.

To avoid repeating myself, I’d just say more thought needs to be given to how global shifts occur during these conflicts, there are many nations in the world that now have nukes and powerful militaries, they all have the potential to have an impact depending where they place their weight on the scales. The US has not endeared itself to most of the world in the post war period, and if they started to look a little shaky, you could see an all-in type scenario.
 
Alcoholic_Author said:
I feel like my response would just be repeating my previous points. Europe hasn’t had any real conflict since ww2, flying half way around the world to drop bombs or station troops is an operation and not comparable to a real military conflict where your nation risks being bombed itself.

To avoid repeating myself, I’d just say more thought needs to be given to how global shifts occur during these conflicts, there are many nations in the world that now have nukes and powerful militaries, they all have the potential to have an impact depending where they place their weight on the scales. The US has not endeared itself to most of the world in the post war period, and if they started to look a little shaky, you could see an all-in type scenario.
Click to expand...
The ISAF experience in Afghanistan for 21 years doesn’t support your theory. You don’t need to fight on your doorstep in order to hone your combat skills. However, the same applies to the Russians; they’ve been using Syria as a testing ground for their own doctrine and systems (as has been pointed out in this thread earlier).

There aren’t ‘many’ nuclear armed nations and none stupid enough to use them; as evidenced by their total absence from any conflict since 1945.

I respect your opinion and we’ll agree to disagree.
 
Hammy said:
The ISAF experience in Afghanistan for 21 years doesn’t support your theory. You don’t need to fight on your doorstep in order to hone your combat skills. However, the same applies to the Russians; they’ve been using Syria as a testing ground for their own doctrine and systems (as has been pointed out in this thread earlier).

There aren’t ‘many’ nuclear armed nations and none stupid enough to use them; as evidenced by their total absence from any conflict since 1945.

I respect your opinion and we’ll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Sure, but those two scenarios, fighting in Afghanistan vs fighting a hostile force in England are fundamentally different concepts with very different stresses and strains.

I believe 9 nations are known to have nukes, but that number could be closer to 15 according to gov ngo experts who collate data on these things. As we know the threat of a nuke is enough, they don’t need to be unwieldy about it like North Korea.

We’ll agree to disagree.
 
MSC said:
China has never really been an offensive military power. Always concentrated on defence and not too successfully against Japan during ww2.
Click to expand...
After the Vietnam War, China did invade the North of Vietnam and got a bloody nose off the Vietcong even though they outnumbered them 10 to 1.
In the Korean War, Chinese troops poured into the north when it looked like the north was facing defeat.
Their so called liberation of Tibet is also questionable.
Although complicated, it is widely accepted that the Chinese sparked the Sino Russian conflict of 1969.
For centuries they treated Goryeo (Korea) as a vassal state.
China also began the aggression in the Sino-Indian War of 1962.
China can be very aggressive to its neighbours when it choses to be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top