Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

VorZakone said:
It was a matter of time I reckon. Not necessarily this thread, but on Reddit I was already seeing people get a little giddy thinking it was almost over.
Click to expand...

it's a shame because they seem to be doing amazing in the urban warfare stakes and on the ground. It's dealing with the bombs and not having the airforce to deter or counter the Russian bombs that is handicapping them.
 
finneh said:
I believe it's "all net proceeds", meaning most likely sale price minus debt, minus purchase price. If sale price is £2b it therefore would be around £350m donated.

Interesting as well as the donation terminology is "victims of the war". Certainly not specifically Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

He's asking for 4b, no? Surely Chelsea will go for more than 2b? Then it's 2,5b+.

... which will all be donated to russian war heroes/officers? Considering the sentence you quote here.
 
People talk a lot about NATO countries arming Ukraine with anti-vehicle weapons, rifles and protective equipment. I know that fighter jets are now on the menu as well, but has something been said about sending tanks, APCs or other vehicles that would support the Ukrainian infantry on the ground? If Ukrainian forces have to regain ground, they will have to fight that battle on the ground after all.
 
hellhunter said:
Instead you have people moaning about EA removing Russian teams from FIFA 22
Click to expand...

I get people can be tribal when it comes to their country (I can be biased over the UK!) but ultimately you have to be honest when things are falling short, especially with something like this.

The world should be sticking together. Harping on about your own economy and then things that haven’t been fair in the past is pretty distasteful. Move on and set an example. Don’t be that guy.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
People talk a lot about NATO countries arming Ukraine with anti-vehicle weapons, rifles and protective equipment. I know that fighter jets are now on the menu as well, but has something been said about sending tanks, APCs or other vehicles that would support the Ukrainian infantry on the ground?
Click to expand...
Not that I recall. Would they be helpful in insurgent-like urban warfare?
 
frostbite said:
But this is a good thing. It creates unity in condemning the Russian invasion. And it matters if there is universal condemnation from everyone, in both small and large issues, even if it is just "public relations" for some companies.
Click to expand...

100%. When lives are at stake, rules and norms generally take a back seat to action and progress.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
People talk a lot about NATO countries arming Ukraine with anti-vehicle weapons, rifles and protective equipment. I know that fighter jets are now on the menu as well, but has something been said about sending tanks, APCs or other vehicles that would support the Ukrainian infantry on the ground?
Click to expand...
Training would be an issue. A civilian can be trained how to shoot a Javelin in less than an hour, it would be difficult to train a tank driver the intricacies of a new tank in short order. An APC would be easier & less time, but still potentially significant.
 
Zlatattack said:
It's getting ridiculous. I think companies are looking to appear to be doing the right thing, rather than doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
As someone who works at EA I can say that in this case, they are doing the right thing not just to appear to be doing so.

Don’t get me wrong there is a lot of bandwagon jumping these days but I don’t believe this is the case here.
 
Kherson would be the first administrative (or acting administrative) centre of one of the 24 oblasts to fall. Given its location, it was probably one of the hardest to defend. I make it the 12th biggest city controlled by Ukraine prior to the invasion last week.
 
TMDaines said:
Kherson would be the first administrative (or acting administrative) centre of one of the 24 oblasts to fall. I make it the 13th biggest city controlled by Ukraine prior to the invasion last week. Given its location, it was probably one of the hardest to defend.
Click to expand...
Will the Russians be able to use it to land troops from the sea there?
 
worldgonemad said:
Will the Russians be able to use it to land troops from the sea there?
Click to expand...

Its not directly on the sea (although not far away). Their goal in the south will be to take Odessa, which means having Kherson (and its small airport) will be a valuable logistical staging point from which to first take Nikolaev (which is 30 minutes away by car), then position themselves to attack Odessa from the east. At that point, I would imagine the amphibious forces the Russians have just off the coast of Odessa will attack from Black Sea, and the 1,500 or so troops Putin has in Transnistria will attack from the west to surround the city.
 
Last edited:
Skåre Willoch said:
He's asking for 4b, no? Surely Chelsea will go for more than 2b? Then it's 2,5b+.

... which will all be donated to russian war heroes/officers? Considering the sentence you quote here.
Click to expand...

There is no chance Chelsea will be sold for anywhere close to £4b; United or Rea! wouldn't sell for that.

I was more thinking a charitable fund is set up spending a fraction of the proceeds and is a safe haven for a few years.
 
Skåre Willoch said:
He's asking for 4b, no? Surely Chelsea will go for more than 2b? Then it's 2,5b+.

... which will all be donated to russian war heroes/officers? Considering the sentence you quote here.
Click to expand...
Roman just announced a garage sale. Doubt he will get market valuation for Chelsea.

2bln is probably the most he’d get out of the club.
 
General_Elegancia said:
If I answer, I think it will probably very long passage but it's very interesting questions and can view in many perspectives.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be detailed, just want to know if I'm missing any sanctions and what they are.

Pintu said:
I don’t think Europe has ever cooperated fully with the American sanctions on Iran. The US kept imposing fines on the European banks that would work with Iran. This seems to be a more comprehensive package and followed willingly by everyone.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Europe actually couldn't help Iran even when Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal and they tried to create INSTX to help Iran away from US' eyes, but they failed miserably because Europe and its companies are completely dependent on the US and can't do anything without its approval. It was China that was cheating a little bit, but even that diminished to the minimum when Obama was in power because he convinced even China and Russia to stop helping Iran (he even convinced Russia not to deliver the S-300 they already signed and Iran paid for during the Bush administration).

Raoul said:
What's the point in the question given that they are different nations in different predicaments and different sets of resources to deal with sanctions.
Click to expand...
I think your reply kind of answers my question. The reason why I'm asking, which you probably know because you tried to anticipate it in the last part of your answer, is because I want to form my own opinion about the chances Russia is going to collapse/capitulate because of these sanctions. If it's similar to the sanctions they placed on Iran then those chances are not big in my opinion, as it failed to bring a smaller country like Iran to its knees. They will definitely incentivize Russia to negotiate and bargain (and make concessions too), but not collapse or capitulate.
 
worldgonemad said:
Will the Russians be able to use it to land troops from the sea there?
Click to expand...
I don't think it will particularly help them with the offensive, in fact they didn't try to enter it at first and went around it further to the West, but they had to cross the Dnieper river and the Ukrainians kept attacking the bridge from Kherson to interrupt their advance, so the forces made a U-turn and came back to take Kherson. And I'm pretty sure the mayor/Ukrainians in Kherson made a deal with the Russians to hand over the city, because it was taken pretty much without a bullet fired in the end.
 
Danny1982 said:
I don't think it will particularly help them with the offensive, in fact they didn't try to enter it at first and went around it further to the West, but they had to cross the Dnieper river and the Ukrainians kept attacking them from Kherson to interrupt their advance, so the forces made a U-turn and came back to take Kherson. And I'm pretty sure the mayor/Ukrainians in Kherson made a deal with the Russians to hand over the city, because it was taken pretty much without a bullet fired in the end.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Kherson shelled and bombed for days?
 
Rooney24 said:
Let’s hope this isn’t true….

Click to expand...


As far as I get, the plane has been located but the crash site is hard to reach due to weather conditions. Search-and-find helicopter also crashed, killing all five on board, this was after they were told to return to base due to bad weather conditions, so might be a tragic accident instead of anyone shooting them down.
 
Raoul said:
Its not directly on the sea (although not far away). Their goal in the south will be to take Odessa, which means having Kherson (and its small airport) will be a valuable logistical staging point from which to first take Nikolaev (which is 30 minutes away by car), then position themselves to attack Odessa from the east. At that point, I would imagine the amphibious forces the Russians have just off the coast of Odessa will attack from Black Sea, and the 1,500 or so troops Putin has in Transnistria will attack from the west to surround the city.
Click to expand...
Does anybody know the current thinking in Moldova about this? Do they not consider themselves likely to be entirely to come under threat from Russian and Transnistrian forces? I am assuming there is no appetite for them to go on the offensive?
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
People talk a lot about NATO countries arming Ukraine with anti-vehicle weapons, rifles and protective equipment. I know that fighter jets are now on the menu as well, but has something been said about sending tanks, APCs or other vehicles that would support the Ukrainian infantry on the ground? If Ukrainian forces have to regain ground, they will have to fight that battle on the ground after all.
Click to expand...
You’d be hard pressed to find a European military that has tanks to spare*, and the logistics to get any meaningful number of tanks from the US would be incredibly daunting and time consuming.


*unless any of those Leopard 1s are still operational that Germany mothballed. But then you’d still need trained crews.
 
Last edited:
TMDaines said:
Does anybody know the current thinking in Moldova about this? Do they not consider themselves likely to be entirely to come under threat from Russian and Transnistrian forces? I am assuming there is no appetite for them to go on the offensive?
Click to expand...

If Putin gains control over Ukraine, taking Moldova would be a walk in the park, especially if he already has troops there. He's also been agitating to disrupt Moldova from within for years, so they would surely be an easy pick up for him.
 
Raoul said:
If Putin gains control over Ukraine, taking Moldova would be a walk in the park, especially if he already has troops there. He's also been agitating to disrupt Moldova from within for years, so they would surely be an easy pick up for him.
Click to expand...
Crimea, Donbas, Belarus, Ukraine, Transnistria, Moldova…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.