• 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.
Chatty83 said:
Was about to say this. The result of the conflict will determine how it is remembered.
Click to expand...
Largely yes but not always. The result will be just as much a relevant piece of history as the opening, while the US invasion of Afghanistan will be judged a failure - it's merit in October 2001 was largely sound and as far as I can tell still difficult to argue against given the circumstances of the time.

Fascinating set of circumstances at the moment. I do wonder how much personalities come into this, I feel it is a huge factor, and to be frank see President Biden as an unwilling but inevitable enabler of Putin's aggression.
 

Helvellyn said:
Largely yes but not always. The result will be just as much a relevant piece of history as the opening, while the US invasion of Afghanistan will be judged a failure - it's merit in October 2001 was largely sound and as far as I can tell still difficult to argue against given the circumstances of the time.

Fascinating set of circumstances at the moment. I do wonder how much personalities come into this, I feel it is a huge factor, and to be frank see President Biden as an unwilling but inevitable enabler of Putin's aggression.
Click to expand...
Depends on what view your looking at it from. Most conflict seem to have several viewpoints that paint them different ways.

Afghanistan was part of a bigger conflict that had been raging for a while among the middle East and gets dragged into that. The instability of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon etc all factor into a massive overall mess that has seen several different boogeymen for the West in Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc

From there POV many of them have been left in a bad situation due to Western interference. Whether that's civilian victims of the overall conflict or off militia groups formed in this time period. Throw in religion and you have an utter clusterfuck of the region.

Most conflicts are like that when you try and look from an unbiased angle but as always it's the general civilians who lose out on all sides and that'll be the result if this kicks off as well.

That said I don't think Russia actually want to invade Ukraine hence all the posturing but it's at a pretty precarious position now where they are gonna want to save face and might just push on.
 
jcrossan said:
Russia could always accuse Ukraine of having weapons of mass destruction - hey, maybe they kept a couple of their nukes after all - and then blow Kiev to kingdom come before sending the troops in.

But only a barbaric land of lunatics would do such a thing.
Click to expand...
Ukraine gave up the 5th largest nuclear arsenal with independence
 
Chatty83 said:
....That said I don't think Russia actually want to invade Ukraine hence all the posturing but it's at a pretty precarious position now where they are gonna want to save face and might just push on.
Click to expand...
So why have they massed troops on the borders of Russia and Belarus?

Are they scared that Ukraine is going to invade Belarus and Russia at the same time?

It can't really have anything to do with a perceived NATO threat because for the Ukraine to join NATO would be a fairly long protracted process in which they would have plenty of warning.

No one is holding a gun to the head of Russia, it is the other way round.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
So why have they massed troops on the borders of Russia and Belarus?

Are they scared that Ukraine is going to invade Belarus and Russia at the same time?

It can't really have anything to do with a perceived NATO threat because for the Ukraine to join NATO would be a fairly long protracted process in which they would have plenty of warning.

No one is holding a gun to the head of Russia, it is the other way round.
Click to expand...

1) Fastest route to Kiev is from Belarus. 2) it makes Belarus leadership feel like Billy Big bollocks.
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
So why have they massed troops on the borders of Russia and Belarus?

Are they scared that Ukraine is going to invade Belarus and Russia at the same time?

It can't really have anything to do with a perceived NATO threat because for the Ukraine to join NATO would be a fairly long protracted process in which they would have plenty of warning.

No one is holding a gun to the head of Russia, it is the other way round.
Click to expand...
Because a threat doesn't work if youre just saying it for the thousandth time and they've already started pushing Ukraine into NATO hence why this is happening now.
 
Chatty83 said:
Depends on what view your looking at it from. Most conflict seem to have several viewpoints that paint them different ways.

Afghanistan was part of a bigger conflict that had been raging for a while among the middle East and gets dragged into that. The instability of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon etc all factor into a massive overall mess that has seen several different boogeymen for the West in Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc

From there POV many of them have been left in a bad situation due to Western interference. Whether that's civilian victims of the overall conflict or off militia groups formed in this time period. Throw in religion and you have an utter clusterfuck of the region.

Most conflicts are like that when you try and look from an unbiased angle but as always it's the general civilians who lose out on all sides and that'll be the result if this kicks off as well.

That said I don't think Russia actually want to invade Ukraine hence all the posturing but it's at a pretty precarious position now where they are gonna want to save face and might just push on.
Click to expand...

If Putin could get away with it we'd be back to pre Berlin Wall days.
Chatty83 said:
Depends on what view your looking at it from. Most conflict seem to have several viewpoints that paint them different ways.

Afghanistan was part of a bigger conflict that had been raging for a while among the middle East and gets dragged into that. The instability of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon etc all factor into a massive overall mess that has seen several different boogeymen for the West in Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS etc

From there POV many of them have been left in a bad situation due to Western interference. Whether that's civilian victims of the overall conflict or off militia groups formed in this time period. Throw in religion and you have an utter clusterfuck of the region.

Most conflicts are like that when you try and look from an unbiased angle but as always it's the general civilians who lose out on all sides and that'll be the result if this kicks off as well.

That said I don't think Russia actually want to invade Ukraine hence all the posturing but it's at a pretty precarious position now where they are gonna want to save face and might just push on.
Click to expand...

If Putin could get away with it we'd be back to pre Berlin Wall days.
 
Chatty83 said:
Because a threat doesn't work if youre just saying it for the thousandth time and they've already started pushing Ukraine into NATO hence why this is happening now.
Click to expand...
Yet it is ok to move Russian armed forces into "neutral" Belarus which borders the NATO country of Poland. It's also ok to form a military alliance with China and conduct combined naval exercises off the coast of Japan, an ally of the USA. It's also ok to conduct Russian naval exercises off the coast of Ireland with warships armed with nuclear weapons? Poor Putin is so worried about a non existent threat from NATO that he seems to think he can use gunboat diplomacy around the world. The reality is that he's in a for a shock. Putin has brought on this crisis because of his own megalomaniac egotistical reasons and to impress domestically. He needs to back down.
Chatty83 said:
Probablys.
Click to expand...
Which would only result in a strengthening of NATO military capabilities on the borders of Russia.
Captain Slackbladder said:
If Putin could get away with it we'd be back to pre Berlin Wall days.


If Putin could get away with it we'd be back to pre Berlin Wall days.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we have moved on from the Cold War. American subs don't just wait in the Atlantic for Soviet sub they now lurk outside the ports of the Northern Fleet for the fuckers to come out and follow them from there.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
Yet it is ok to move Russian armed forces into "neutral" Belarus which borders the NATO country of Poland. It's also ok to form a military alliance with China and conduct combined naval exercises off the coast of Japan, an ally of the USA. It's also ok to conduct Russian naval exercises off the coast of Ireland with warships armed with nuclear weapons? Poor Putin is so worried about a non existent threat from NATO that he seems to think he can use gunboat diplomacy around the world. The reality is that he's in a for a shock. Putin has brought on this crisis because of his own megalomaniac egotistical reasons and to impress domestically. He needs to back down.

Which would only result in a strengthening of NATO military capabilities on the borders of Russia.

The problem is that we have moved on from the Cold War. American subs don't just wait in the Atlantic for Soviet sub they now lurk outside the ports of the Northern Fleet for the fuckers to come out and follow them from there.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you just blow your own argument out of the water? If the US subs can shadow the Russian subs from the moment they leave port, what’s the argument against Russia patrolling in international waters off the coast of Ireland or the US?

As for Russia partnering with Belarus and China, explain the difference between that and the US troops stationed in South Korea, Germany, Poland, Afghanistan until very recently, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Philippines, numerous “territories” strategically positioned around the Pacific …?
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
Yet it is ok to move Russian armed forces into "neutral" Belarus which borders the NATO country of Poland. It's also ok to form a military alliance with China and conduct combined naval exercises off the coast of Japan, an ally of the USA. It's also ok to conduct Russian naval exercises off the coast of Ireland with warships armed with nuclear weapons? Poor Putin is so worried about a non existent threat from NATO that he seems to think he can use gunboat diplomacy around the world. The reality is that he's in a for a shock. Putin has brought on this crisis because of his own megalomaniac egotistical reasons and to impress domestically. He needs to back down.

Which would only result in a strengthening of NATO military capabilities on the borders of Russia.

The problem is that we have moved on from the Cold War. American subs don't just wait in the Atlantic for Soviet sub they now lurk outside the ports of the Northern Fleet for the fuckers to come out and follow them from there.
Click to expand...
Quite a bit of misinformation in there mind.

Belarus and Russia are military allies, in fact it's a deeper partnership than that. Read up on the Union State, it's a pretty lame attempt to form an EU type economic, cultural and security partnership in the region with Russia at its head.
There is no China-Russia military alliance but it is actually ok for countries to hold joint military exercises as long as they follow the protocols agreed in international and maritime law.
You say NATO is a non-existent threat but what is it now? It's certainly not the defensive alliance formed to halt any expansionist plans for the old Soviet Union and has invaded at least three states since the end of the cold war.
 
Hair Flick said:
Didn’t you just blow your own argument out of the water? If the US subs can shadow the Russian subs from the moment they leave port, what’s the argument against Russia patrolling in international waters off the coast of Ireland or the US?

As for Russia partnering with Belarus and China, explain the difference between that and the US troops stationed in South Korea, Germany, Poland, Afghanistan until very recently, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Philippines, numerous “territories” strategically positioned around the Pacific …?
Click to expand...
Because it is taking the piss to hold exercises off the Irish coast. Why not hold them mid Atlantic. Would Russia tolerate nuclear armed American subs as part of an American fleet operating drills just off the Crimean coast? It was intimidating while at the same time Putin was rattling his nukes. It got the expected response.

The second part of your question is irrelevant as what I have said is in response to a perceived fear by Putin of NATO being embedded in NATO countries that border Russia when at the same time he moves larger battle groups into Belarus which borders NATO countries. Then again I never could see any reason why NATO was involved in Afghanistan. The troops based in South Korea are a remnant of the Korean War and with the nutter of North Korea who could criticise that. The two Koreas are still officially at war.
r@mside said:
Quite a bit of misinformation in there mind.

Belarus and Russia are military allies, in fact it's a deeper partnership than that. Read up on the Union State, it's a pretty lame attempt to form an EU type economic, cultural and security partnership in the region with Russia at its head.
There is no China-Russia military alliance but it is actually ok for countries to hold joint military exercises as long as they follow the protocols agreed in international and maritime law.
You say NATO is a non-existent threat but what is it now? It's certainly not the defensive alliance formed to halt any expansionist plans for the old Soviet Union and has invaded at least three states since the end of the cold war.
Click to expand...
I fully understand the Russia-Belarus-Ukraine relationships that historically began centuries before the Soviet Era. I doubt very much whether NATO would have any intention of invading Russia.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
Because it is taking the piss to hold exercises off the Irish coast. Why not hold them mid Atlantic. Would Russia tolerate nuclear armed American subs as part of an American fleet operating drills just off the Crimean coast? It was intimidating while at the same time Putin was rattling his nukes. It got the expected response.

The second part of your question is irrelevant as what I have said is in response to a perceived fear by Putin of NATO being embedded in NATO countries that border Russia when at the same time he moves larger battle groups into Belarus which borders NATO countries. Then again I never could see any reason why NATO was involved in Afghanistan. The troops based in South Korea are a remnant of the Korean War and with the nutter of North Korea who could criticise that. The two Koreas are still officially at war.

I fully understand the Russia-Belarus-Ukraine relationships that historically began before the Soviet Era. I doubt very much whether NATO would have any intention of invading Russia.
Click to expand...
As the French and Germans have proven in two different century’s it’s an extremely stupid idea, and that was without nuclear weapons
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top