• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So at what point would NATO or some European coalition say fuck it, we now have to go in on humanitarian grounds?

What if he drops a few thermobaric bombs into the centre of Kyiv effectively destroying it to same level of a nuke would.
Or he uses chemical weapons or nerve agent.
Or a tactical nuke.

When would we go in?
 

Morse said:
OK, serious question for those knowledgeable on political and military matters.

What would be the ramifications of the west ‘liberating’ Belarus and installing democracy?
Click to expand...
“NATO poked the Russian bear” types would call us Imperialists and say it justifies what Putin is doing.
Zidane said:
So at what point would NATO or some European coalition say fuck it, we now have to go in on humanitarian grounds?

What if he drops a few thermobaric bombs into the centre of Kyiv effectively destroying it to same level of a nuke would.
Or he uses chemical weapons or nerve agent.
Or a tactical nuke.

When would we go in?
Click to expand...
We should go in before that but as usual will do it after the horse has bolted.
 
Last edited:
Zidane said:
So at what point would NATO or some European coalition say fuck it, we now have to go in on humanitarian grounds?

What if he drops a few thermobaric bombs into the centre of Kyiv effectively destroying it to same level of a nuke would.
Or he uses chemical weapons or nerve agent.
Or a tactical nuke.

When would we go in?
Click to expand...
All of those would be crimes against humanity so I think we would have to go in then.
 
Zidane said:
So at what point would NATO or some European coalition say fuck it, we now have to go in on humanitarian grounds?

What if he drops a few thermobaric bombs into the centre of Kyiv effectively destroying it to same level of a nuke would.
Or he uses chemical weapons or nerve agent.
Or a tactical nuke.

When would we go in?
Click to expand...
We will never go in, Putin is winning the mind games with his threat of Nuclear War.
 
Zidane said:
So at what point would NATO or some European coalition say fuck it, we now have to go in on humanitarian grounds?

What if he drops a few thermobaric bombs into the centre of Kyiv effectively destroying it to same level of a nuke would.
Or he uses chemical weapons or nerve agent.
Or a tactical nuke.

When would we go in?
Click to expand...
We wouldn't.

Unless there is a direct threat towards us, Sad but true.
 
den said:
We will never go in, Putin is winning the mind games with his threat of Nuclear War.
Click to expand...
but losing the war with his misjudgment of the Ukrainian resolve and unity of their support. His "invasion" has pretty much ground to a halt. Hes resorting to indiscriminate shelling and is taking massive losses. There are plenty of pressures on the other side of the balance. The pressure on him at home will only increase. The sanctions are hitting now, inflatiin is out of control in Russia and there are lots of reports that he is rapidly running out of ammo. its not all one sided. He has decisions to make too and so far hes got more than a few wrong.
 
Morse said:
It’s weird.

On the one hand people are saying no European leaders want to get involved with no fly zones, military assistance for Ukraine etc because war with Russia could lead to nuclear war.

Then they’re saying that if Sweden was invaded, everybody would pile in - no mention of the potential MAD that could result.

So basically, helping Ukraine militarily is unthinkable because of nukes, but helping Sweden - no bother at all, everyone piles in…

If we’re scared of Putin using nukes, then we can’t ever take him on, can we? He can do what the hell he likes. It doesn’t make a difference whether an invaded country is in NATO, the EU or any other mutual defence organisation, we can’t fight them because of nukes.

Absolutely mental.
Click to expand...
Agree mate.
So our options are either get involved now, and risk nuclear war, or, get involved later and risk nuclear war, or, sit and watch innocent people die.

Personally, I'm f***ing glad that's above my pay grade.
Scotty said:
we did'nt just allow Stalin to over-run half of europe - we effectively gave him our blessings to do it in the aim of stopping Germany

and the big difference between then and now - then we could'nt do anything to stop Stalin (theres a reason why Operation Unthinkable got its name) - now we could quite easily stop Putin in his tracks

IF we think nukes are a bluff that is
Click to expand...
At the end of WW2, Churchill was in favour of carrying on into Russia, to stop what he saw as the inevitable growth of Stalinism throughout Eastern Europe, but was a lone voice.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 
Last edited:
Boots said:
but losing the war with his misjudgment of the Ukrainian resolve and unity of their support. His "invasion" has pretty much ground to a halt. Hes resorting to indiscriminate shelling and is taking massive losses. There are plenty of pressures on the other side of the balance. The pressure on him at home will only increase. The sanctions are hitting now, inflatiin is out of control in Russia and there are lots of reports that he is rapidly running out of ammo. its not all one sided. He has decisions to make too and so far hes got more than a few wrong.
Click to expand...
He won’t stop until he cannot physically continue. Whatever inflation is doing, whatever protests are happening in Russia, as long as he has functioning artillery he will keep dropping bombs whether cluster, thermo or chemical if that’s all he has left.

He may well run out of functioning artillery at some point. He would do more quickly if the RAF or drones started taking out artillery.
 
It’s possible Russia has already achieved everything it wanted to. Ukraine has a huge amount of untapped oil and gas resource beneath it’s soil and off the coast of Crimea.

Russia, as a primarily pectrochem economy invaded Crimea to grab those resources. However, in doing so they failed to realise that 85% of Crimea’s fresh water came from mainland Ukraine. Ukraine dammed those water resource shortly after Crimea’s annexation. As a result, since 2014 Crimea has been dying a slow death.

By creating a land bridge between Russia and Crimea as well as pushing north to secure water resources to for Crimea, it’s possible they’ve achieved the basis of what they sought to achieve.

If Russia do legitimately come to the negotiating table, those areas are likely to be non-negotiable for Russia.

By also making Ukraine seem unstable it also deters the western energy companies that Ukraine have sold the abstraction rights to from extracting those resources and possibly undercutting Russia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top