Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
UK Considers Sending Anti-Air Missiles To Ukraine Warning: 'We Will Not Back Down'
“President Putin should be and can be in no doubt that the international community is united against his actions," Ben Wallace said.
Makes no sense, the Yemen problem is caused by Iran, which is supported by Russia, and we now have two countries with oil bombing civilian areas. Oil seems to make countries stupid.
Last edited:
They're registering their protest against the forthcoming deal with Iran where they've not been consulted over riding their previous strenuous objections. Don't you read the papers , knucklehead ?UK Considers Sending Anti-Air Missiles To Ukraine Warning: 'We Will Not Back Down'
“President Putin should be and can be in no doubt that the international community is united against his actions," Ben Wallace said.www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
Makes no sense, the Yemen problem is caused by Iran, which is supported by Russia, and we now have two countries with oil bombing civilian areas. Oil seems to make countries stupid.
If its so simple - why did the US combined military with its 82nd Airborne, its Green Berets, its Navy Seals, its Marvel and Capcom alliance fail to pacify goat *censored*ers in Afghanistan
Maybe the Taliban had a better military ... hmmm.
In other news - Biden wet his pants again (seriously see a doctor) when the Poles offered Ukraine their MiGs. With his F-22s, F-35s why is Biden afraid of Russia so much?
Now the above is an overly simplistic interpretation. You see how it goes south despite being based on facts?
Thats the issue with your rants too. Take notes son, take notes.
Pls go easy on him . He may be an uncouth urchin who shoots off more often than not but that's normal teen hormonal imbalance trying to best channelize his aggro & besides he's underaged. Usual teen angst . Rebel without a cause without a pause.
Stay off propaganda and get some reality by coming to this forum. Your post contains propaganda and here is the reality:
Pentagon says Polish proposal to transfer jets to US to give to Ukraine isn't 'tenable'
The Pentagon on Tuesday evening dismissed Poland's proposal floated hours earlier to transfer its MiG-29 fighter jets to the United States for delivery to Ukraine.
edition.cnn.com
Think of pigeons during a football match, they never participate in the actual game and instead just crap on the crowd every now and again. And when the match is over and the players leave, the pigeons retake control of the field. Pigeons are great footballers in the same way that the Taliban are great fighters. In fact pigeons are great fighters too because they regularly invade cities and neighbourhoods at will.
Now back to the real answer. Russia has lost more troops in Ukraine already than all the allies lost combined in Afghanistan over 20 years. And unlike Afghanistan, this war has so far been fought symmetrically by regular forces. This should be the easy part.
Because nobody currently wants to spend the money or resources to fix Putin, or risk a nuclear war. In a democracy large wars tend not to be that popular and thus get voted down in parliament (or equivalent). Besides, for many, Putin digging himself a hole and then proceeding to deepen it isn't necessarily a bad outcome.
Lol.Polish proposal to transfer the fighters to Germany & hand over charge to USAF there made the latter two soil their pants .Stay off propaganda and get some reality by coming to this forum. Your post contains propaganda and here is the reality:
Pentagon says Polish proposal to transfer jets to US to give to Ukraine isn't 'tenable'
The Pentagon on Tuesday evening dismissed Poland's proposal floated hours earlier to transfer its MiG-29 fighter jets to the United States for delivery to Ukraine.
I think the Poles ought to transfer them to UK . BJ would certainly welcome them & permit UK to be their temporary base before they depart to Ukraine. There's overwhelming support for the Ukranian cause among both the government & the people including the opposition .
After all the foreign secretary has appealed to UK citizens to join the fight in their Pvt capacity & their SecDef was more than eager & willing to kick Russian a rses like they did in Crimea once upon a time. What say Paddy ? @BMD
Have you ever tried a computer war game sim? Like the Operational Art of War? Its pretty good for arm chair folks
My learning from the games I played are - irrespective of the tech edge, casualties will happen (I know comp game is no match for real life but bear with me) unless you first systematically degrade the OPFOR capability. For the reasons best known to him, Putin chose a US style shock and awe - but unlike the US in Iraq & Afghanistan - he is facing a determined foe, with a capable force and a TON of external support. Its basically a reverse Vietnam.
What is happening here is Putin's forces are fighting a force getting very high degree of real time intel, precision weapons and advisors who help Ukraine adjust its tactics against the Russians. Those advisors are not there to stop a Russian victory - rather they are there to just bleed the Russians and make it a morale and public opinion problem for Putin.
My original point - in response to @WHOHE was that an overly simplistic interpretation isnt always the best one - something you too emphasized with your comment.
And finally an unpopular opinion
USA today is incapable of fighting a major war against a modern army. In Afghanistan the pampered princesses of the US Army and National Guard wanted air conditioning and pizzas in deployment areas - the result was it cost the US $2.1 Million for putting one soldier on the ground.
Sustaining a multi division force with support elements running high tempo operations (totally different from Afghanistan) is now a trillion dollar task.
The US has innovated itself into a conundrum where it can win a war but it will surely bankrupt itself in the process.
Basically , expert Indian opinions from ex defence personnel with more expertise , insight & experience with Russian tactics having exercised with them frequently have cited two problems with current Russian strategy viz :
1.) Putin tried to execute Gulf War 1&2 approach using small detachments similar to how the US prosecuted their Afghanistan campaign when they got rid of the Taliban.
2.) Russian Army tactics usually consist of deploying heavy artillery basically reducing entire swathes of land to rubble before troops move in to sweep away the stragglers.
The latter was not allowed as it would lead to untold casualties something Putin wanted to avoid .
Basically both options exercised are totally out of character with Russian tactics & strategy . Broadly agree with the rest of your points.
P S : you ought to have pointed out to Paddy that the analogy of pigeons with Taliban is precisely why the US & UK got bummed in Afghanistan. Had they been more serious & less dismissive about the Taliban particularly their bases across the border the outcome would've been different. Having said that UK loves being bummed . Not sure about the US though . But if it continues it's partnership with the UK they'd soon grow to like it as well .
The US normal conducts surgical airstrikes to degrade opposing military first though, take Desert Storm as a case study (back when Iraq was still a strong military). The fact Putin rushed in on the grounds suggests that he knows he has limited time to get this done before sanctions start to bite and before the war becomes contentious back in Russia.
I don't think that's the case at all. If a small number of advisors, anti-tank missiles and MANPADS can cause this much trouble, just imagine what the several thousand fighter jets of NATO could do. The fact is that NATO countries just don't want the expense and don't want the burden of blame that comes from participating in a war, or the risk of escalation, including nuclear.
In many ways Russia in Ukraine is an easier task since there are clear and highly visible targets and very expensive targets that actually cost the enemy more than the missiles being used for a change. NATO spends a very small amount of GDP on defence relative to Russia (even when Russia isn't at war), there is plenty of headroom there, there is also a global base of support, which Russia does not have.
At present no NATO members are actually being affected by this war, so they remain militarily passive, but there are very large gatherings of NATO troops in Eastern Europe just in case it spills over into something else. War generally has a weakening affect regardless of its outcome and money has to be spent on warfighting rather than equipment upgrades. This would benefit China, which is the main focus right now. It is believed that Putin has terminal bowel cancer at present so, with any luck, his own a55 will devour him before long.
Last edited:
