Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

sport2793 said:
The difference is that the US is better at shock and awe than the Russians, that much is clear after what we have seen over the last few days. Russians have suffered almost the same number of deaths reportedly in the last few dats as the US suffered in the entire Iraq war.
Click to expand...

Numerically and technologically the US is on a whole other level. They can attack with such overwhelming force that for pretty much all non-nuclear weapon countries their only option would be to let them roll in and start guerilla warfare from day 1. By trying to stand up to the invasion with a regular army, you’ll just lose manpower and equipment quicker.
 
spiriticon said:
If he chooses the nuclear option, I'm sure the deterrent protocols are now ready.
Also our forces immediately go in and end the war in 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
Exactly, although I was too colourful and rightly called out for expressing this too forcefully previously. Last I checked, the US was still on DEFCON 4, we'll see if Putin's fancy new "special nuclear deterrence operation" draws a response or raise of DEFCON, depends on what intelligence we receive and how we interpret and monitor the deployment of strategic nuclear capable Russian forces and the threat assessments they pose. Despite the US being on DEFCON 4 however, we have seen NATO deployments and re-distribution of assets around the globe. We really don't know, thank goodness, what's happening beneath the seas or what's been transferred from SAC bases in the US to places like Bergamo or Diego Garcia, but we can expect we're moving chess pieces all around the board, and will respond appropriately to the "special nuclear deterrence operation".

What this could mean:
1) Putin is aligning forces for a pre-emptive first-strike capability. This is highly unlikely, although he was quoted the other day as saying something about "superior new technology" or something like that. Most likely, I suspect this is a veiled threat that they have developed hypersonic nukes. However, many suspect the US and other NATO allies have also advanced in hypersonic technologies as well. Again, though what would his targets be? Striking the mainland US, UK or France would be unthinkable because the response would be total and overwhelming. NATO bases in Estonia, Romania, Poland or the Baltics? Again, the response would and could be overwhelming. Kaliningrad, basically a heavily militarized district, which lies outside mainland Russia, would probably be the immediate target of a NATO response. Deploying tactical nukes against NATO naval vessels or submarines? Again, this would and could escalate quickly...
2) Deploy against targets in Ukraine? Again this makes no sense, what sense would it make to ruin the prize he's seeking to claim? Occupying a country with potions of it a radioactive wasteland is costly, and would defeat the whole purpose.
3) My suspicions, this is pre-text and warning in order to justify conventional strikes against NATO and Western assets, if and when he deems it necessary. The longer the Ukrainians hold out, the more difficult this becomes. For example, we heard about arms shipments from Germany to Ukraine. What if he decides to breach Polish airspace and knock those cargo planes out the air, killing German military personnel? Or hit the NATO bases they arrive at in Poland? The West could also decide to establish no-fly zones to allow humanitarian aid into Ukraine, he could defy those zones and knock out humanitarian airlifts or humanitarian convoys, claiming they were arms shipments or directly confront NATO planes enforcing those no-fly zones. Let's also remember the playbook here, Russia supplied the "separatists" with anti aircraft systems and they shot down a civilian airliner during the 2014 conflict. That lack of a clear "command and control structure" also allows Putin and Russia plausible deniability, if something like that happened. This is what worries me the most, I suspect he's not talking "first-strike" capabilities or deployment against Ukrainian targets, but setting the stage for deterrence as a pre-text for justifying conventional actions against NATO targets, and a warning against no-fly zones and preventing humanitarian or military aid.
 
Last edited:
I see people love Sheffield in this thread. Thanks for the replies, it makes sense to go for Moscow.
 
spiriticon said:
Right I'm definitely having a whisky later tonight. Hope I see tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...

You will mate. There's no nukes flying towards you. At least for this night.

VorZakone said:
Thanks. I understand both sides. We'll see how the sentiment develops over time.
Click to expand...

It can only be truely judged in hindsight. At this stage, the measures seem drastic, but correct - since we're making up for years of underfunding as well.
 
Frosty said:
We still have some Carter air raid sirens in cities for nuclear war.

Here is one being tested in Portsmouth:

Click to expand...


They are still used or similar ones for flood sirens - they have them in places like Todmorden/Hebdon Bridge.

I wonder how many people actually know, imagine waking up to that!
 
Tough nights and days for Kyiv coming. TV reporters now notably wearing a lot more protective gear on BBC and Sky:

 
I'm not going to share it here but I saw some Kharkov aftermath footage. Not for the faint hearted, it looked literally like hell and very dystopian.

Any news on these supposed peace talks yet?
 
Massive Spanner said:
I know they’re not in NATO. I meant given how NATO have reacted so far it’s hard not to see them reacted to that too, and not just with sanctions. Putin clearly didn’t expect a response like this from NATO members to the invasion.
Click to expand...

I think that is a fair statement. Especially based upon the total inaction of any country to his takeover of Crimea. And the very clear statement from Biden and all of NATO that they would not send soldiers into Ukraine were Russia to invade Ukraine.
He took a calculated gamble on that and is obviously unhappy and I would say genuinely surprised at the collective response.
But that just goes to show how totally out of touch he is.
 
Hernandez - BFA said:
Realistically, how can Putin survive this once his mission has failed? Surely he can’t remain in power after this shitshow? He’d be far too unstable to let him continue as Russia’s leader no?
Click to expand...
I am certain they will take over *Kyiv within the next couple of days but these sanctions could end him. Really depends on how they spin this now with the people of Russia.
 
Last edited:
0161_UNITED said:
Exactly, although I was too colourful and rightly called out for expressing this too forcefully previously. Last I checked, the US was still on DEFCON 4, we'll see if Putin's fancy new "special nuclear deterrence operation" draws a response or raise of DEFCON, depends on what intelligence and . Despite the US being on DEFCON 4 however, we have seen NATO deployments and re-distribution of assets around the globe. We really don't know, thank goodness, what's happening beneath the seas or what's been transferred from SAC bases in the US to places like Bergamo or Diego Garcia, but we can expect we're moving chess pieces all around the board, and will respond appropriately to the "special nuclear deterrence operation".

What this could mean:
1) Putin is aligning forces for a pre-emptive first-strike capability. This is highly unlikely, although he was quoted the other day as saying something about "superior new technology" or something like that. Most likely, I suspect this is a veiled threat that they have developed hypersonic nukes. However, many suspect the US and other NATO allies have also advanced in hypersonic technologies as well. Again, though what would his targets be? Striking the mainland US, UK or France would be unthinkable because the response would be total and overwhelming. NATO bases in Estonia, Romania, Poland or the Baltics? Again, the response would and could be overwhelming. Kaliningrad, basically a heavily militarized district, which lies outside mainland Russia, would probably be the immediate target of a NATO response. Deploying tactical nukes against NATO naval or submarines? Again, this would and could escalate quickly...
2) Deploy against targets in Ukraine? Again this makes no sense, what sense would make to ruin the prize he's seeking to claim? Occupying a country with potions of it a radioactive wasteland is costly, and would defeat the whole purpose.
3) My suspicions, this is pre-text and warning in order to justify conventional strikes against NATO and Western assets, if and when he deems it necessary. The longer the Ukrainians hold out, the more difficult this becomes. For example, we heard about arms shipments from Germany to Ukraine. What if he decides to breach Polish airspace and knock those cargo planes out the air, killing German military personnel? Or hit the NATO bases they arrive at in Poland? The West could also decide to establish no-fly zones to allow humanitarian aid into Ukraine, he could defy those zones and knock out humanitarian airlifts or humanitarian convoys, claiming they were arms shipments or directly confront NATO planes enforcing those no-fly zones. Let's also remember the playbook here, Russia supplied the "separatists" with anti aircraft systems and they shot down a civilian airliner during the 2014 conflict. That lack of a clear "command and control structure" also allows Putin and Russia plausible deniability, if something like that happened. This is what worries me the most, I suspect he's not talking "first-strike" capabilities or deployment against Ukrainian targets, but setting the stage for deterrence as a pre-text for justifying conventional actions against NATO targets, and a warning against no-fly zones or enforcing humanitarian or military aid.
Click to expand...

This is a really good quality post.

Regarding option #2 (Russia deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine) - you point out that this is counterproductive because he doesn't want to occupy a radioactive country with poisoned agricultural land and levelled cities, but I would suggest that this train of thought relies upon Russia actually wanting to keep Ukraine for itself. We're still not entirely clear on Putin's motive, it could well be that he can't stand seeing Ukraine, a former Soviet vassal, living as a western democracy, and thus, burning it to the ground might not seem so crazy to him.
 
Shakesey said:
Let's say Russia nukes the UK, for example. Will the rest of the world nuke Russia if they know it would mean the end of us all?
Click to expand...
We'll be reet, well just use fat bozzers bulbous ass to soak up the radiation, any fallout dust will be snorted by gove.
 
hp88 said:
I am certain they will take over Ukraine within the next couple of days but these sanctions could end him. Really depends on how they spin this now with the people of Russia.
Click to expand...
They will take over Ukraine within the next couple of days? Are you serious?
 
Precaution said:
to actually set off a Nuclear bomb there's a precious chain of events that need to occur, at best though you'd probably knock it off course and cause abit of a radiation hazard in say somewhere before London (Kent) or Delaware if going for Washington.
Click to expand...
I'd sacrifice Maidstone
 
VorZakone said:
We might see siege tactics from Russia. This isn't over yet.

Click to expand...

I don't think he meant that they have literally surrounded entire city. Most likely meant that there is no safe route to get the civilians all the way to the western border or cities around there. At least I hope he meant it.
 
Shakesey said:
I'd guess about 0.1% of the global population would press the button if it meant total global annihilation.
Click to expand...

The worry is that Putin is quite possibly in that 0.1% The only way I see this going is that he gets taken out by his own men at some stage in the next few weeks/months
 
I said it earlier but how far will the Russian people let Putin go?

The military is overwhelmed currently.. surely an ideal time for a large scale move against him led by some influential people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.