| Massacre of Bucha 17:02 - Apr 3 with 5735 views | Kropotkin123 |
Guess we're just going to let this continue to happen, rather than sufficiently protecting Ukrainians.
More empty words from European leaders "condemning" atrocities.
USA and UK had an agreement to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. We have dishonoured this. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |  |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:34 - Apr 3 with 2059 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:22 - Apr 3 by HARRY10 |
Dear god, it just gets worse with every post he puts up
Do you honestly think NATO countries have simply handed over sophisticate weapons systems with the advice
"there's a manual included, try not to let Ivan get old of any"
The world has moved on from the days of the Victor and the Hotspur - unfortunately your 'thinking' appears not to have ie
Nato has been in Ukraine since the 90's. |
You ok? You’ve not seemed to understand or address K’s post, just insult him/her/it. |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:03 - Apr 3 with 2032 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:22 - Apr 3 by HARRY10 |
Dear god, it just gets worse with every post he puts up
Do you honestly think NATO countries have simply handed over sophisticate weapons systems with the advice
"there's a manual included, try not to let Ivan get old of any"
The world has moved on from the days of the Victor and the Hotspur - unfortunately your 'thinking' appears not to have ie
Nato has been in Ukraine since the 90's. |
Div listed as you can never have a political conversation without putting people down. Leave the politics to the grown ups, kid. | |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:15 - Apr 3 with 1992 views | HARRY10 |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:34 - Apr 3 by Swansea_Blue |
You ok? You’ve not seemed to understand or address K’s post, just insult him/her/it. |
or
"Do you honestly think NATO countries have simply handed over sophisticate weapons systems with the advice"
Otherwise he is utterly clueless. A relation was working in Ukraine in 17/18, and I have no reason to believe it was just his unit on a one off.
There is every thought that Putin is trying to goad the West into open involvement. The idea that the West would break its agreement to honour Ukraine sovereignty, and escalate this to where nuclear weapons could be used is utterly absurd.
The thread was started with false information. Something that could have easily been checked. Anyone with such a limited grasp on events is worthy of ridicule |  | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:15 - Apr 3 with 1996 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:34 - Apr 3 by Swansea_Blue |
You ok? You’ve not seemed to understand or address K’s post, just insult him/her/it. |
Didn't even read this before my post, as it was on the next page. They do it to everyone. Realised over time that is is a waste of energy to interact with people like them. You could be in agreement and they'd still be acting like they have a superior perspective.
Their criticism is somewhat ironic, given the lack of factual data they usually include in their illegible rants. [Post edited 3 Apr 2022 21:30]
| |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:25 - Apr 3 with 1979 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:15 - Apr 3 by HARRY10 |
or
"Do you honestly think NATO countries have simply handed over sophisticate weapons systems with the advice"
Otherwise he is utterly clueless. A relation was working in Ukraine in 17/18, and I have no reason to believe it was just his unit on a one off.
There is every thought that Putin is trying to goad the West into open involvement. The idea that the West would break its agreement to honour Ukraine sovereignty, and escalate this to where nuclear weapons could be used is utterly absurd.
The thread was started with false information. Something that could have easily been checked. Anyone with such a limited grasp on events is worthy of ridicule |
You’re well wide of the mark on this one.
Kropotkin123 said:
“I don't agree that he would deploy nukes if we went into Ukraine with NATO military. It is clear to Put an that the west is not prepared to stand up militarily to nuclear nations, and this is apart of his calculations to invade and remain in the country.
In summary, I would argue to deploy NATO forces amongst other members.”
To which you replied with something unintelligible. There’s nothing wrong with thinking Putin wouldn’t retaliate with nukes if NATO sent in troops. Nobody knows whether he would or wouldn’t, which is exactly why the West is so nervous.
You don’t have to attack everyone. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:28 - Apr 3 with 1973 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 21:15 - Apr 3 by Kropotkin123 |
Didn't even read this before my post, as it was on the next page. They do it to everyone. Realised over time that is is a waste of energy to interact with people like them. You could be in agreement and they'd still be acting like they have a superior perspective.
Their criticism is somewhat ironic, given the lack of factual data they usually include in their illegible rants. [Post edited 3 Apr 2022 21:30]
|
Yeah, Harry’s his own worst enemy. It’s a shame as we need someone with the energy to continually remind everyone the Tories are VERY bad for the UK (which he does well), but such a person also needs to be taken seriously (not so much evidence for that!). | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:10 - Apr 3 with 1928 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 19:48 - Apr 3 by Kropotkin123 |
Semantics. Inaction is a betrayal. |
Not at all. It's a specifically-worded treaty. There is no requirement or expectation that the other signitories should come to Ukraine's defence.
And what inaction? We've been training and equipping the Ukrainian military since the Memorandum was first breached, seven years ago. That, plus the supplies pouring in before and after the Russian invasion is what has given Ukraine the tools to fight them off.
If what you're demanding is that we should have attacked Russia, then we may as well consign the world to all-out nuclear war, as that would very likely be the outcome. Plus there wouldn't have been the spare weaponry to send to Kyiv. And, like Poland in 1939, Ukraine would have been overrun before we could apply sufficient force to stop it. You can't simply turn NATO on and off like a tap (it took the Russians months to build up their forces for a relatively limited campaign).
These massacres are not the fault of the West, but of Vladimir Putin, with the Russian military and security services. They and they alone launched the war and murdered those civilians. |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:38 - Apr 3 with 1903 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:10 - Apr 3 by Guthrum |
Not at all. It's a specifically-worded treaty. There is no requirement or expectation that the other signitories should come to Ukraine's defence.
And what inaction? We've been training and equipping the Ukrainian military since the Memorandum was first breached, seven years ago. That, plus the supplies pouring in before and after the Russian invasion is what has given Ukraine the tools to fight them off.
If what you're demanding is that we should have attacked Russia, then we may as well consign the world to all-out nuclear war, as that would very likely be the outcome. Plus there wouldn't have been the spare weaponry to send to Kyiv. And, like Poland in 1939, Ukraine would have been overrun before we could apply sufficient force to stop it. You can't simply turn NATO on and off like a tap (it took the Russians months to build up their forces for a relatively limited campaign).
These massacres are not the fault of the West, but of Vladimir Putin, with the Russian military and security services. They and they alone launched the war and murdered those civilians. |
What I'm advocating is the defence of Ukraine's territory with NATO troops. Not the invasion of Russian territory.
Inaction in terms of direct involvement, as opposed financial aid, military aid, etc. Ukraine asks us for weeks to create a no fly zone over their territory, and I agree that we should.
I don't disagree with what you are saying in your final paragraph, and it isn't what I'm suggesting/implying. | |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:47 - Apr 3 with 1889 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:05 - Apr 3 by Swansea_Blue |
Frustrating as hell innit. His nuclear deterrent seems to be working even if ours isn’t up to stopping him invading an independent state and committing heinous war crimes. We’ve been tip-toeing around him for a couple of decades though, so why change now?
I suppose it is too big a risk. But it might not be; he’s desperate to show his people that he’s the good guy and it’s just an “operation”. He can’t do that if he starts throwing nukes around. Plus, haven’t we got a defense net anyway?
I’ve no idea what the answer is as I obviously don’t know what our capabilities are, but someone needs to take him out. This bloke is Hitler 2. Surely someone could do a sneaky hit, just so we aren’t seen to be involved.
And it’s those gentleman’s rules are what’s frustrating me the most. It’s fine for us to supply weapons to let the Ukrainians kill Russians, but apparently we can’t be seen to help. Yet those weapons are making a massive difference. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. We’re in this war already, just in a sanitised way. It all seems pretty perverse; us and Russia both pretending that the rest of Europe and the US have nothing to do with it. |
An ICBM is re-entering the atmosphere at about 15,000 mph, with some ability to maneuver and putting out radar decoys. It slows down significantly due to air resistance, but you're looking at around 30 seconds from there to arrive on target at detonation altitude.
In that time, you have to pick it up on radar, sort out the real warhead(s) from the decoys and calculate trajectories (which may change). Then you have to launch some sort of interceptor missile, get it to altitude and sufficiently close to destroy or disable the warhead. With a closing speed between warhead and interceptor of thousands of mph, any fractional error is a miss.
Depending upon the system, there may be up to half-a-dozen warheads per missile. With perhaps a number of missiles aimed at the most important targets. All of them will need to be dealt with. On top of that there may be jamming and EMP* attacks to disable critical radar and electronic systems.
Which is a long-winded way of saying I don't place a lot of faith in the efficacy of missile defence systems against modern ICBMs. They can just about deal with basic stuff like Scuds, Grads and Palestinian home-made rockets. Anything faster or more sophisticated and a large proportion are going to get through.
Putin would simply claim Russia is under attack from the evil West and he was forced into going nuclear. Much like he insists he was forced into invading Ukraine. The official Russian media will just parrot his line.
* High altitude nuclear detonations have been found to badly affect and even damage electrical/electronic equipment (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ). This has, of course, been adopted as a deliberate tactic. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:47 - Apr 3 with 1886 views | ZXBlue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 19:47 - Apr 3 by Kropotkin123 |
I don't agree that he would deploy nukes if we went into Ukraine with NATO military. It is clear to Put an that the west is not prepared to stand up militarily to nuclear nations, and this is apart of his calculations to invade and remain in the country.
In summary, I would argue to deploy NATO forces amongst other members. |
Why would he not deploy battlefield nukes? Nato will not respond in kind for fear of escalation and mutually assured destruction.
He would get away with it. As he will get away with cluster bombs, chemical weapons etc. | | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:47 - Apr 3 with 1885 views | Rob88 |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:10 - Apr 3 by Guthrum |
Not at all. It's a specifically-worded treaty. There is no requirement or expectation that the other signitories should come to Ukraine's defence.
And what inaction? We've been training and equipping the Ukrainian military since the Memorandum was first breached, seven years ago. That, plus the supplies pouring in before and after the Russian invasion is what has given Ukraine the tools to fight them off.
If what you're demanding is that we should have attacked Russia, then we may as well consign the world to all-out nuclear war, as that would very likely be the outcome. Plus there wouldn't have been the spare weaponry to send to Kyiv. And, like Poland in 1939, Ukraine would have been overrun before we could apply sufficient force to stop it. You can't simply turn NATO on and off like a tap (it took the Russians months to build up their forces for a relatively limited campaign).
These massacres are not the fault of the West, but of Vladimir Putin, with the Russian military and security services. They and they alone launched the war and murdered those civilians. |
Ukraine have been given assurances though that one of the signatories would seek action through the UN Security Council if they become victim of an act of aggression. The only issue is that as Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC they could veto any substantive action.
It’s all a massive farce. Another Russian con the west went for hook, line and sinker.
The UN in reality seems to have as much purpose as a c@ck flavoured lollipop. | | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:11 - Apr 3 with 1855 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 22:38 - Apr 3 by Kropotkin123 |
What I'm advocating is the defence of Ukraine's territory with NATO troops. Not the invasion of Russian territory.
Inaction in terms of direct involvement, as opposed financial aid, military aid, etc. Ukraine asks us for weeks to create a no fly zone over their territory, and I agree that we should.
I don't disagree with what you are saying in your final paragraph, and it isn't what I'm suggesting/implying. |
Which would mean fighting Russians - war with Russia. Upon whose territory it took place would matter not one jot in Moscow.
Imposing a no-fly zone would mean not only shooting down Russian 'planes (and them trying to do the same in reply), but bombing their air-defence missile batteries, guns and radar systems to create a safe environment for our aircraft to operate in. An all-out air war, in other words. We would essentially be joining in combat on the Ukrainian side.
That's if we could successfully impose a no-fly zone over areas hundreds of miles from NATO bases. By no means guaranteed. Plus the countries containing those bases would then be open to attack.
It's not an easy choice, seeing what atrocities the Russians have carried out in the towns they've occupied, but the suffering is more limited by helping the Ukrainians to defend themselves and applying economic pressure, than by widening it into a European or global war, with perhaps extreme consequences. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:17 - Apr 3 with 1838 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 20:28 - Apr 3 by Swansea_Blue |
We significantly overestimated their non-nuclear capability, so who knows. There’s a good chance the red button is rusted up. Not that I’d want to be the one responsible for taking the risk. |
There is something in that, but it is one area they have put a lot of resources into modernising.
Plus the Russian failings in Ukraine have been more organisational then technological*. Logistics in particular. That is less of an issue with nuclear forces based in the motherland or at sea.
* Tho the policy (inherited from the USSR) of making tanks more maneuverable and lightly armoured than their Western counterparts has been shown up as an error. Also, they don't have enough of the best kit. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:26 - Apr 3 with 1830 views | jeera |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:17 - Apr 3 by Guthrum |
There is something in that, but it is one area they have put a lot of resources into modernising.
Plus the Russian failings in Ukraine have been more organisational then technological*. Logistics in particular. That is less of an issue with nuclear forces based in the motherland or at sea.
* Tho the policy (inherited from the USSR) of making tanks more maneuverable and lightly armoured than their Western counterparts has been shown up as an error. Also, they don't have enough of the best kit. |
But they seem to have made the most basic of tactical errors.
The ridiculous long queue of vehicles heading towards Kyiv the other week, all stacked in a row moving at snail's pace.
But I also read earlier of a column that got pretty much wiped out in Bucha in a street that was described as the ideal place for an ambush. The first and last vehicles were knocked out first with the rest trapped and vulnerable.
These were the kind of mistakes that were made in the 1940s for goodness sake with identical tactics to take them out.
Edit: I see some other traditional and cynical and cowardly methods have resurfaced too then:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-s
[Post edited 3 Apr 2022 23:35]
|  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 00:03 - Apr 4 with 1799 views | bournemouthblue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 18:46 - Apr 3 by Guthrum |
The ones on submarines? Probably not more than a general idea of where they might be. Even the mobile launchers on land are not going to be easy to spot and track with the kind of real-time precision needed to reach and hit them.
In any case, the Russians can (and would) launch a counter-strike while our first load of missiles are still on their way.
A conventional attack which threatened the survival of the Russian state - for which read Putin's presidency - would fulfil all the (well publicised) conditions for them to launch their nuclear arsenal first.
Finally, even if NATO was able to conduct a completely successful first strike, knocking out all of Russia's capability to respond, there would still be tens of millions of dead in that country and vast clouds of radioactive dust beginning to make their way around the Earth's weather systems. All for the actions of one man. |
Nuclear War really doesn't bear thinking about, Nukes are planet killers
It is completely utterly mental, the deterrent is no one being stupid enough to use them |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 00:04 - Apr 4 with 1799 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:26 - Apr 3 by jeera |
But they seem to have made the most basic of tactical errors.
The ridiculous long queue of vehicles heading towards Kyiv the other week, all stacked in a row moving at snail's pace.
But I also read earlier of a column that got pretty much wiped out in Bucha in a street that was described as the ideal place for an ambush. The first and last vehicles were knocked out first with the rest trapped and vulnerable.
These were the kind of mistakes that were made in the 1940s for goodness sake with identical tactics to take them out.
Edit: I see some other traditional and cynical and cowardly methods have resurfaced too then:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-s
[Post edited 3 Apr 2022 23:35]
|
Sick addition to your edit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/all-wars-are-like-this-used-as-a-w |  | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 00:10 - Apr 4 with 1798 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:26 - Apr 3 by jeera |
But they seem to have made the most basic of tactical errors.
The ridiculous long queue of vehicles heading towards Kyiv the other week, all stacked in a row moving at snail's pace.
But I also read earlier of a column that got pretty much wiped out in Bucha in a street that was described as the ideal place for an ambush. The first and last vehicles were knocked out first with the rest trapped and vulnerable.
These were the kind of mistakes that were made in the 1940s for goodness sake with identical tactics to take them out.
Edit: I see some other traditional and cynical and cowardly methods have resurfaced too then:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-s
[Post edited 3 Apr 2022 23:35]
|
Logistics played a part in that. Without fuel, the column couldn't advance or deploy. It was just stuck, being picked off by drones and small, mobile units of Ukrainians, or vehicles simply being abandoned by their crews.
There have been lots of tactical errors, such as sending tanks forward without proper infantry support. Outright blunders, really. Some of it might have simply been overconfidence, expecting little or no resistance.
Which is what may have led to the massacres. It has happened in previous wars that troops expecting an easy ride who instead are dealt a bloody nose then go on the rampage against civilians or prisoners.
Bear in mind that most of these Russian soldiers are kids in their late teens or early 20s, not mentally prepared for hard fighting, particularly of the sort where attacks can arrive from any direction, even well behind the "front line", hit and equally quickly disappear back into the countryside. This then spreads up and down the line as rumour, getting magnified all the time. They're cold, tired, hungry and frightened, sat in trucks and metal boxes which might explode any minute. They shoot at anything which moves. Lose control and kill civilians, who they may percieve as hostile, perhaps even aiding the enemy.
That's not to excuse the atrocities in any way, but it is how they happen. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 07:49 - Apr 4 with 1715 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Of course. The UK government has nothing to lose and everything to gain by trumpeting hot air about a war it and nobody else cares one jot about. Clue: a World Cup in Russia four years after this invasion started and enthusiastically attended by all the protagonists without a care in the world
Johnson can call for sanctions that shatter Western Europe’s economies and cause immense harm to millions of Brits because they boost his popularity, deflect attention from his law breaking and disastrous uselessness and offer opportunities - not least in the arms businesses the UK is using this war to showcase.
In the meantime we can tut tut and decry those nasty Russians for making life hell for civilians - just like we do when we invade other peoples countries. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:24 - Apr 4 with 1666 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 07:49 - Apr 4 by ElephantintheRoom |
Of course. The UK government has nothing to lose and everything to gain by trumpeting hot air about a war it and nobody else cares one jot about. Clue: a World Cup in Russia four years after this invasion started and enthusiastically attended by all the protagonists without a care in the world
Johnson can call for sanctions that shatter Western Europe’s economies and cause immense harm to millions of Brits because they boost his popularity, deflect attention from his law breaking and disastrous uselessness and offer opportunities - not least in the arms businesses the UK is using this war to showcase.
In the meantime we can tut tut and decry those nasty Russians for making life hell for civilians - just like we do when we invade other peoples countries. |
Just to clarify your second para. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t be imposing sanctions on Russia because it’s also harmful to our own economy? |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:30 - Apr 4 with 1656 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:24 - Apr 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Just to clarify your second para. Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t be imposing sanctions on Russia because it’s also harmful to our own economy? |
I thought he was suggesting that Boris Johnson had arranged the whole show with Putin to distract from Partygate. | |
| |
| Huge mis-information and conspiracy theory campaign underway over Bucha… on 08:36 - Apr 4 with 1645 views | unstableblue |
…. with same groups and influencers who drive anti-vaxx messaging now also supporting the messaging that Bucha massacre was staged
The mass psychosis continues people.
It’s madness. |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:40 - Apr 4 with 1635 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:30 - Apr 4 by Guthrum |
I thought he was suggesting that Boris Johnson had arranged the whole show with Putin to distract from Partygate. |
Which oh is nonsense because the UK government were the first to give Ukraine lethal aid at a time when the the Russian plan to invade Ukraine wasn’t even making the first three pages of the daily newspapers. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:41 - Apr 4 with 1640 views | Churchman |
| Massacre of Bucha on 23:26 - Apr 3 by jeera |
But they seem to have made the most basic of tactical errors.
The ridiculous long queue of vehicles heading towards Kyiv the other week, all stacked in a row moving at snail's pace.
But I also read earlier of a column that got pretty much wiped out in Bucha in a street that was described as the ideal place for an ambush. The first and last vehicles were knocked out first with the rest trapped and vulnerable.
These were the kind of mistakes that were made in the 1940s for goodness sake with identical tactics to take them out.
Edit: I see some other traditional and cynical and cowardly methods have resurfaced too then:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-s
[Post edited 3 Apr 2022 23:35]
|
The Russians appear to have underestimated Ukrainian resistance and essentially bit off more than they can chew with what they have there at the moment. Their kit is mixed in quality, as are their soldiers. The latter possibly accounts for any atrocities. They are refocusing their forces in the east and will swallow that portion of Ukraine. There is only so much battering Zelenski’s forces can take before they have to surrender.
The effect of handheld ground to air and anti tank systems has also been significant. It’s a game changer that is making tanks look of limited value. It will be interesting to see the effect of more modern manpads like Starstreak in the air in the next few days. With that, under about 12k feet, you can take your chaff, flares and ECMs and chuck them all in the bin. A missile like that has 3 warheads, and flies down a laser beam at Mach 3 plus. You have no time to finish your crossword, that’s for sure.
As for the west, the response has been plenty of words, plenty of chaos and some limited action. Meagre support from most, not least because the military kit cupboard is bare. Putin would have anticipated that. The rouble is at the level it was before the war and that is significant. Hungary’s man got re-elected and is pro Putin, despite being a NATO member. Article 5? If Russia was to walk in why would any western country send men to die in that country? They wouldn’t so that’s Article 5 in the bin.
Putin has won in respect of nuclear. The west has conceded that under no circumstances would it launch, so what they have is useless, as it stands. What should have happened is a no fly zone from the start and a warning to Putin not to even begin to think of nuclear. He’s paranoid about his own health and threatening that would have forced his hand, just as it did Khrushchev in the 60s. I doubt the war would have escalated, any more than it did in Korea or anywhere else. Too late now.
Overall, what a mess. I don’t rate Biden, but in terms of Putin, he is dead right. The swine needs getting rid of. To inflict this misery and death on a people that have done him no harm whatsoever is a war crime in itself. He’s a totalitarian throwback, but sadly is one of the most secure leaders in the world who will win this war, at the expense of his own people and particularly Ukraine. Other losers - the western countries whose feebleness is there for all to see. The US will emerge ok as will China and India.
Just thoughts on a depressing, sad situation caused by one animal. |  | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:50 - Apr 4 with 1627 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:40 - Apr 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Which oh is nonsense because the UK government were the first to give Ukraine lethal aid at a time when the the Russian plan to invade Ukraine wasn’t even making the first three pages of the daily newspapers. |
The UK (amongst others) has been helping to train and equip the Ukrainian army since just after the siezure of Crimea and the beginning of the Donbas conflict. Two Prime Ministers ago. | |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 09:18 - Apr 4 with 1607 views | Guthrum |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:41 - Apr 4 by Churchman |
The Russians appear to have underestimated Ukrainian resistance and essentially bit off more than they can chew with what they have there at the moment. Their kit is mixed in quality, as are their soldiers. The latter possibly accounts for any atrocities. They are refocusing their forces in the east and will swallow that portion of Ukraine. There is only so much battering Zelenski’s forces can take before they have to surrender.
The effect of handheld ground to air and anti tank systems has also been significant. It’s a game changer that is making tanks look of limited value. It will be interesting to see the effect of more modern manpads like Starstreak in the air in the next few days. With that, under about 12k feet, you can take your chaff, flares and ECMs and chuck them all in the bin. A missile like that has 3 warheads, and flies down a laser beam at Mach 3 plus. You have no time to finish your crossword, that’s for sure.
As for the west, the response has been plenty of words, plenty of chaos and some limited action. Meagre support from most, not least because the military kit cupboard is bare. Putin would have anticipated that. The rouble is at the level it was before the war and that is significant. Hungary’s man got re-elected and is pro Putin, despite being a NATO member. Article 5? If Russia was to walk in why would any western country send men to die in that country? They wouldn’t so that’s Article 5 in the bin.
Putin has won in respect of nuclear. The west has conceded that under no circumstances would it launch, so what they have is useless, as it stands. What should have happened is a no fly zone from the start and a warning to Putin not to even begin to think of nuclear. He’s paranoid about his own health and threatening that would have forced his hand, just as it did Khrushchev in the 60s. I doubt the war would have escalated, any more than it did in Korea or anywhere else. Too late now.
Overall, what a mess. I don’t rate Biden, but in terms of Putin, he is dead right. The swine needs getting rid of. To inflict this misery and death on a people that have done him no harm whatsoever is a war crime in itself. He’s a totalitarian throwback, but sadly is one of the most secure leaders in the world who will win this war, at the expense of his own people and particularly Ukraine. Other losers - the western countries whose feebleness is there for all to see. The US will emerge ok as will China and India.
Just thoughts on a depressing, sad situation caused by one animal. |
I'd disagree that Article 5 is now irrelevant. NATO has coordinated pretty well to send military aid to a non-member country. There hasn't been any suggestion that they would refuse to defend one which is. Even Orban's Hungary has not blocked sanctions.
There is no NATO declaration it would refuse to launch nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Indeed, what both they and the Russians have said are nothing more than restatements of pre-existing policy - namely a response to an enemy nuclear strike or if there was a conventional threat to the survival of the nation.
Korea was a very different scenario. In 1950, the USSR had only just carried out its first nuclear test, with two more during the war. Their weapon stockpile was nonexistant, that of the USA very limited. Neither side had rapid, uninterceptable delivery systems (i.e. missiles), but were reliant upon WWII-era* heavy bombers.
Cuba centred around verbal threats and counter-threats. There was no actual shooting war in progress which could have caused things to get out of hand (tho that still nearly happened). Again, ICBMs did not yet exist - which was the necessity for the USSR to base intermediate-range weapons in Cuba and the USA in Turkey - so the former didn't have the same leverage as today.
I'm not Russia does have the strength (or, more accurately, the organisational capability) to "win" on the ground, even in eastern Ukraine. They may be able to secure the Donbas, but not much more.
* Even the B-36 had been designed in the first half of the 1940s. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
