Russia v Ukraine

[Numero Veinticinco]

38 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Looking at big European Nato members, I don't think they would be ready to fight Russia if it moves against the Baltic states. It may be stern warnings, dismay and condemnation. I don't know about the US. But I am not sure French or British soldiers would be ready to die for Estonia. Russia may decide to test their resolve believing Nato will fall apart. 

 

Also, it may be that there is far less conventional weapons people believe there is. This may also be one of the reason for slow assistance to Ukraine.

There is an exactly 100% chance of NATO military action if they put one tank into the Baltic states. We have the defences in place, and ok rotation, exactly for that event. 

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

There is an exactly 100% chance of NATO military action if they put one tank into the Baltic states. We have the defences in place, and ok rotation, exactly for that event. 

Lets hope so.

 

But why is the military assistance to Ukraine slowing down instead of speeding up? I don't get it. Can't believe they think there is danger of Ukraine becoming too strong.

[mattyq]

Afghanistan Iraq etc... there's been lots of testing grounds for the shiny weaponry and, as far as I can see, it works

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, mattyq said:

Afghanistan Iraq etc... there's been lots of testing grounds for the shiny weaponry and, as far as I can see, it works

And those were a fraction of the power NATO countries have available. As for NATO being a Potemkin village… nope. It’s the most powerful entity ever to exist. The United States alone, well, I don’t think people get it. Most people who aren’t interested in militaries and war, and even some who are, just have no understanding of how mighty the US military is. Their logistics is like nothing I’ve ever seen. Moving shot around is actually insanely difficult and they have shit ready to go. And when I say ready to go, I mean they can move entire MEUs with an entire Battalion Landing Team, and attachments of tanks, air, etc. they are fucking frightening, and we interoperability training with them all the time. There’s nobody in the world who would have a chance. The US could invade Russia more quickly than Russia could invade the Eastern part of Russia. They are truly unbelievable. There’s just one leveller, and it makes a really, really loud bang. 

[TheHowieLama]

Will say that America has always put a "governor" on the military. Multiple Presidents in both parties have sent troops in but never with a cold blooded smash and grab mentality. There is always a large % of the American public who oppose any foreign conflict and that makes it tough/impossible to bring the hammer down full force.

[SasaS]

Yet with all that power they are afraid sending modern equipment to Ukraine would anger Russians.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Will say that America has always put a "governor" on the military. Multiple Presidents in both parties have sent troops in but never with a cold blooded smash and grab mentality. There is always a large % of the American public who oppose any foreign conflict and that makes it tough/impossible to bring the hammer down full force.

That’s because no country is stupid enough to attack the US directly. If NATO or the US gets attacked, you’ll see the full might of American military power. I think people look at Iraq and Afghanistan and think ‘it took them ages there’, nope, it took them hours to beat them conventionally. With a fraction of what they have and the desire not to kill innocents. If a world war kicks off, baby you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The world would rock. 

[Bjornebye]

"I've got a lovely shiny helmet and a pair of kinky boots" 

 

 

Put the guns down dickheads. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Yet with all that power they are afraid sending modern equipment to Ukraine would anger Russians.

Yeah, avoiding a potential nuclear war is advisable.

[Bjornebye]

NASA need to live stream Rocky 4 in the sky. Calm every cunt down. 

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, avoiding a potential nuclear war is advisable.

But if Russian tanks roll into Estonia, that is no longer a consideration? That would be a purely conventional war, to which Russia would in no way respond  in a very nuclear way? And where is the line, send them 150 howitzers and 12 rocket launchers, but not 300 and 72?

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But if Russian tanks roll into Estonia, that is no longer a consideration? That would be a purely conventional war, to which Russia would in no way respond  in a very nuclear way? And where is the line, send them 150 howitzers and 12 rocket launchers, but not 300 and 72?

They don’t ‘send’ then anything, they - we all - defend it as if it were an attack on ourselves. Estonia can’t defend itself even in the way Ukraine is. A no fly zone would go up immediately and we would have to attack inside Russia’s borders with CAP and SEAD missions. The reason Ukraine is being treated differently is obviously because we are not treaty bound to defend them in this way. I don’t mean to tell you that as if you don’t know it, I’m just clarifying why I think the reaction in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, places where we have troops stationed flying in the Baltic Air Policing, is so different. Mate, I’m tellin’ ya, they can’t be allowed to roll into NATO land and get away with it, that is war, otherwise NATO doesn’t actually exist. Once he attacks a NATO country he isn’t seen as somebody trying to grab Ukraine again, he is seen as Adolf Hitler, and with good cause. The line is the NATO borders. They’ve made that super clear. Germany, France and UK will initially fucking destroy any invasion. It would ‘go off’ like we’ve never seen it before because they’d try to strike us with their long range bombers. We’ve seen how quickly shot can go south in previous wars. It only to Franz Beckenbauer to save the wrong penalty against Bosnia and everything went mental. 

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

They don’t ‘send’ then anything, they - we all - defend it as if it were an attack on ourselves. Estonia can’t defend itself even in the way Ukraine is. A no fly zone would go up immediately and we would have to attack inside Russia’s borders with CAP and SEAD missions. The reason Ukraine is being treated differently is obviously because we are not treaty bound to defend them in this way. I don’t mean to tell you that as if you don’t know it, I’m just clarifying why I think the reaction in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, places where we have troops stationed flying in the Baltic Air Policing, is so different. Mate, I’m tellin’ ya, they can’t be allowed to roll into NATO land and get away with it, that is war, otherwise NATO doesn’t actually exist. Once he attacks a NATO country he isn’t seen as somebody trying to grab Ukraine again, he is seen as Adolf Hitler, and with good cause. The line is the NATO borders. They’ve made that super clear. Germany, France and UK will initially fucking destroy any invasion. It would ‘go off’ like we’ve never seen it before because they’d try to strike us with their long range bombers. We’ve seen how quickly shot can go south in previous wars. It only to Franz Beckenbauer to save the wrong penalty against Bosnia and everything went mental. 

That doesn't actually answer my question.

 

It seems Nato is afraid Russia will lose for some reason, and in the case of Estonia, it somehow wouldn't be (in a hypothetical scenario, they probably would never attack directly I think, they might create a situation in which some town with a lot of Russians puts up barricades against "nationalists" and the tanks then roll in to "protect" them so there is a muddled situation for a military reaction), but they don't want Ukraine to lose either.

 

That does not look to me as a sustainable approach. It is more like a policy RP would come up with. Plus "diplomacy".

 

[TheHowieLama]

16 minutes ago, SasaS said:

It seems Nato is afraid Russia will lose for some reason, and in the case of Estonia, it somehow wouldn't be (in a hypothetical scenario, they probably would never attack directly I think, they might create a situation in which some town with a lot of Russians puts up barricades against "nationalists" and the tanks then roll in to "protect" them so there is a muddled situation for a military reaction), but they don't want Ukraine to lose either.

 

Nah - I don't think that is it. I think an all out financial support (read shiny munitions), much less boots on the ground, for Ukraine right now is a tough sell in alot of countries. Some can't do it at all.

You are veering towards the "war machine" there.

I do agree with @Numero Veinticincothat if any tank that rolls across the border of a NATO country - there is no more muddled. 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, SasaS said:

That doesn't actually answer my question.

Oh, I must have misread it then. Let me check again. You asked 'where is the line, send them...', to which I replied directly that we don't send them anything, we defend it as if it is an attack on ourselves. Because that is what it is. I outlined some of the steps that would likely be taken, and I thought those actions being taken held an implicit answer to your question asking 'if Russian tanks roll into Estonia, that is no longer a consideration? That would be a purely conventional war, to which Russia would in no way respond in a very nuclear way?'. The simplistic answer is 'no, it's not a consideration in defending our land, because...' and then my answer. The more complicated answer is, it's always a consideration when trying to act proportionally and avoid and serious escalation in war, etc. However, in repelling an attack on NATO, all necessary steps required to defend those countries will have to be taken, in the full knowledge that Russia does have nuclear weapons. If a nuclear armed power is attacking you, you can't not defend yourself because they might let off some really, really big bombs. This is RP territory. There's a really big difference between somebody attacking us and somebody attacking somebody else. The Baltic states are 'us'. That's the point of the defensive pact. If he is willing to have his country destroyed, maybe every single person, because he wants to release nukes, then there's really not much else you can do. You can't live under his tyranny. There is always a tipping point, and attacks on NATO soil is that red line. Of course, I'm not saying 'we see two tanks on the bored, best get the nukes out', but if there's an invasion then airstrikes will have to happen on those invading forces, as will heavy missile strikes from bases and sea launch platforms. You'd have to hope that he wouldn't just nuke us, but then we are already hoping that. He knows that launching his will lead to his destruction, the destruction of his daughters, and most of the human race. Repelling his attack would unlikely lead him to push the nuclear self-destruct button. Even if it did, how far do you actually let him push until you say 'no more'. 

 

Anyway, that's all imaginary. He's very unlikely to touch NATO because he knows what'll happen. There's no sizable Russian support in those countries. They're EU countries with growing capitalist economies, with rising standards of living, and a more Western view. They can't just fifth column that shit. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Nah - I don't think that is it. I think an all out financial support (read shiny munitions), much less boots on the ground, for Ukraine right now is a tough sell in alot of countries. Some can't do it at all.

You are veering towards the "war machine" there.

I do agree with @Numero Veinticincothat if any tank that rolls across the border of a NATO country - there is no more muddled. 

 

 

Don't really understand this. What is a tough sell in sending not 18 but 36 French howitzers or not 7 but 36 German ones (and stopping fucking up other nations deliveries?)

 

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Oh, I must have misread it then. Let me check again. You asked 'where is the line, send them...', to which I replied directly that we don't send them anything, we defend it as if it is an attack on ourselves. Because that is what it is. I outlined some of the steps that would likely be taken, and I thought those actions being taken held an implicit answer to your question asking 'if Russian tanks roll into Estonia, that is no longer a consideration? That would be a purely conventional war, to which Russia would in no way respond in a very nuclear way?'. The simplistic answer is 'no, it's not a consideration in defending our land, because...' and then my answer. The more complicated answer is, it's always a consideration when trying to act proportionally and avoid and serious escalation in war, etc. However, in repelling an attack on NATO, all necessary steps required to defend those countries will have to be taken, in the full knowledge that Russia does have nuclear weapons. If a nuclear armed power is attacking you, you can't not defend yourself because they might let off some really, really big bombs. This is RP territory. There's a really big difference between somebody attacking us and somebody attacking somebody else. The Baltic states are 'us'. That's the point of the defensive pact. If he is willing to have his country destroyed, maybe every single person, because he wants to release nukes, then there's really not much else you can do. You can't live under his tyranny. There is always a tipping point, and attacks on NATO soil is that red line. Of course, I'm not saying 'we see two tanks on the bored, best get the nukes out', but if there's an invasion then airstrikes will have to happen on those invading forces, as will heavy missile strikes from bases and sea launch platforms. You'd have to hope that he wouldn't just nuke us, but then we are already hoping that. He knows that launching his will lead to his destruction, the destruction of his daughters, and most of the human race. Repelling his attack would unlikely lead him to push the nuclear self-destruct button. Even if it did, how far do you actually let him push until you say 'no more'. 

 

Anyway, that's all imaginary. He's very unlikely to touch NATO because he knows what'll happen. There's no sizable Russian support in those countries. They're EU countries with growing capitalist economies, with rising standards of living, and a more Western view. They can't just fifth column that shit. 

 

 

 

 

 

Estonia's PM has recently sacked her coalition partners with accusations they have been "fifth columning that shit".

 

On Ukraine, so, it is defended by arms supplies. But at the same time, these supplies are calibrated so it wouldn't provoke a nuclear reaction. Presumably, receiving enough weapons to actually start winning would provoke said nuclear reaction. Therefore, Ukraine would never receive enough to win.

 

What is the point of such assistance then? To support them until Russia realizes it cannot win and gives up? The same country that US is afraid would use nukes if it starts losing, because it cannot afford to lose.  What if Russia calculates the size of some expeditionary force it can afford to keep in Ukraine for a number of years and decides to force Ukraine into capitulation through military and economic attrition? Would the West respond by continuous military supplies assistance and  footing the bill for their budget indefinitely?

 

The West must simply answered the question, do we want Ukraine to win, what is needed, and what is the risk. And then help them win, or leave them to the Russians. What it is doing now seems like putting off answering that question.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, SasaS said:

What is the point of such assistance then?

Attrition. Though none of the Ukraine stuff was anything I was interested in really, just the reaction to NATO attacks. As for Estonia, she sacked seven Centre ministers, mostly because of the deadlock over some family benefits policy. She made some passing 'pro-Russia' remark, but if that's what we are talking about it's less of a column and more of a small twig. 

[Elite]

Is there any coincidence that Stig created the Covid thread and this one?

 

The cunts behind it all.

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Attrition. Though none of the Ukraine stuff was anything I was interested in really, just the reaction to NATO attacks. As for Estonia, she sacked seven Centre ministers, mostly because of the deadlock over some family benefits policy. She made some passing 'pro-Russia' remark, but if that's what we are talking about it's less of a column and more of a small twig. 

Ah, she is very anti-Russia, bless her. You need a bit of that now.

 

I don't know, I cannot shake the feeling NATO is also two-tier or multi-tier as EU leans towards being, there are probably more important and less important members and not sure the resolve would pass the stress test in case of smaller members. Outright invasion possibly, but a more insidious longer attack, not sure, with all the different agendas and lack of principled policy.  

 

On Ukraine, it seems pretty obvious that Ukraine's neighbours to the west and north see things differently from big EU members and those further away, who see Ukraine in the way of business relations with Russia, whilst US pursues global agenda and UK wants to position itself as an international factor in its own right. Not sure what was this sudden visit today about, for example, after the troika yesterday.

[Red Phoenix]

1st March : U.S. Sanctions on Russia Show Its Global Chip Domination - Bloomberg

 

17th June :

 

 

[SasaS]

And when you actually read the article...

[Red Phoenix]

14 minutes ago, SasaS said:

And when you actually read the article...

 

I read it. Prices have increased and are likely to stay that way for a good while yet even though reliance on Russia has been cut right down and the main country to benefit will be China.

 

Not really the global chip domination that the writer for Bloomberg was going on about I don't think.

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I read it. Prices have increased and are likely to stay that way for a good while yet even though reliance on Russia has been cut right down and the main country to benefit will be China.

 

Not really the global chip domination that the writer for Bloomberg was going on about I don't think.

There was already a shortage of chips for quite some time in the car industry. It is all globalized anyway, a mine changes hands in Congo, Toyota is in trouble.

 

Even without sanctions, it says Russians have bombed and destroyed refining capacities or something in Ukraine. I know that both countries were global leader in some important mineral, or gas or whatever which was one of the reasons Russia hoped it could blackmail the world, like with grain.

[Red Phoenix]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

There was already a shortage of chips for quite some time in the car industry. It is all globalized anyway, a mine changes hands in Congo, Toyota is in trouble.

 

I think we need to get our priorities straight here. What if this chip problem affects the PS5?

 

And I wasn't making it out to be some world breaking thing, more that it's another example of how these sanctions are creating even more chaos when things are already in a bad mess.

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

There was already a shortage of chips for quite some time in the car industry. It is all globalized anyway, a mine changes hands in Congo, Toyota is in trouble.

 

Even without sanctions, it says Russians have bombed and destroyed refining capacities or something in Ukraine. I know that both countries were global leader in some important mineral, or gas or whatever which was one of the reasons Russia hoped it could blackmail the world, like with grain.

There’s still a massive shortage. Chips previously costing $2 are going for $100.  The car industry is hoovering them up because they have the margin but goods like, say, electricity meters that cost £50 each just can’t take the hit. 
 

I’ve not read the article but Ukraine also provides a lot of the raw material used in their manufacture.