Who was it again who said Chechen soldiers were real life James Bonds? Was it the guy who recently had this break down claiming Russia is clearly winning the war?
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Who was it again who said Chechen soldiers were real life James Bonds? Was it the guy who recently had this break down claiming Russia is clearly winning the war?
Yes. Though the Chechen reputation wasn't entirely without merit. I believe they were regarded as pretty good jihadist fighters in conflicts outside Chechnya such as Syria.
People are too scared to say anything against Putin or the government. 100 years of dictators have broken them in to submission.
The BBC reports:
"... Vladimir Putin has made a fresh threat to the West, saying any country that sets out to intervene in Ukraine will face a "lightning-fast" military response.
"We have all the tools for this, that no one else can boast of having... we'll use them, if needed," he said. "We have already taken all the decisions on this ...
"... Vladimir Putin has made a fresh threat to the West, saying any country that sets out to intervene in Ukraine will face a "lightning-fast" military response.
"We have all the tools for this, that no one else can boast of having... we'll use them, if needed," he said. "We have already taken all the decisions on this ...
The BBC reports:
"Western officials have been briefing on the latest in the war and they say Russia has continued to build up forces in and around the Donbas and are making minor gains.
"But when they come up against genuine military objectives, they are finding it difficult to overcome the staunch Ukrainian resistance and they are suffering losses," an official said.
Heavy rain is also hampering Russian progress. "Russians don't like to fight in the rain,” an official said, adding that the Russians have poor tactical awareness and continue to suffer from logistical difficulties.
They have the ability to operate off road, but officials say it’s surprising that they still choose not to do so.
Even in places where Ukrainian forces have found themselves encircled, they have managed to resupply their forces "for a surprising length of time". (Mariupol being the most obvious example).
Officials noted that even in places where Russia has taken ground, Ukrainian forces have shown a “remarkable” ability to counter-attack - sometimes doing it so fast that the Russians quickly find themselves on the back foot.
Ukrainian special forces, operating behind Russian lines, are exploiting the vulnerability of long supply lines, which helps to buy time for Ukraine."
"Western officials have been briefing on the latest in the war and they say Russia has continued to build up forces in and around the Donbas and are making minor gains.
"But when they come up against genuine military objectives, they are finding it difficult to overcome the staunch Ukrainian resistance and they are suffering losses," an official said.
Heavy rain is also hampering Russian progress. "Russians don't like to fight in the rain,” an official said, adding that the Russians have poor tactical awareness and continue to suffer from logistical difficulties.
They have the ability to operate off road, but officials say it’s surprising that they still choose not to do so.
Even in places where Ukrainian forces have found themselves encircled, they have managed to resupply their forces "for a surprising length of time". (Mariupol being the most obvious example).
Officials noted that even in places where Russia has taken ground, Ukrainian forces have shown a “remarkable” ability to counter-attack - sometimes doing it so fast that the Russians quickly find themselves on the back foot.
Ukrainian special forces, operating behind Russian lines, are exploiting the vulnerability of long supply lines, which helps to buy time for Ukraine."
Who knew that nuclear armageddon was going to be decided by some guy on a football forum.
US Intelligence basically admitted in the past couple days (I don't know why they did but they did) that they were able to advise the Ukrainians exactly when and where the Russians were going to strike when the war started, which helped the Ukrainians move equipment like war planes to safety. If they know such specific details, they probably have multiple sources of intel from inside Russian command. If those sources are willing to give up this sort of intel, they'll definitely have a bullet ready for Putin if he ever decides to take it to a nuclear level, if I were to guess.
Good. Let's give them everything we can.
Ironically this statement could have been made by the US, UK or NATO.
Live speech from the Foreign Sec if anyone is interested
We‘ll be fine. See…
The funny thing is that the likes of Russia, China and North Korea would always be the first to moan and bitch in public whenever a Western power flexs its military muscles so blatantly.
Or an 8 year old.
Referring to Britain specifically:
" ... Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, suggested that strikes could be authorized against NATO states who provide arms to Ukraine.
She warned: 'Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime?"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ites-in-pro-ukraine-nato-countries/ar-AAWE2OK
" ... Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, suggested that strikes could be authorized against NATO states who provide arms to Ukraine.
She warned: 'Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime?"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ites-in-pro-ukraine-nato-countries/ar-AAWE2OK
Last edited:
Not much of a surprise that they are less than happy about the current situation.
Also, good fecking luck with that
who knew that some chap on a football forum was stupid enough to think that another chap on a football forum was deciding “nuclear armageddon” on that very football forum.What concerns me - when combined with the views of Vlad Vexler as cited earlier in this thread regarding Putin's gambling willingness to escalate up to and including the use of nukes - is Russia's continually ratcheting up the threats.
They must know that such threats will not deter the West from supplying weapons - so why are they continuing making and intensifying these threats? What purpose does it serve? Might they in fact be psychologically preparing the Russian public for nuclear conflict, as well as geeing up their own nerves to actually do it?
Unlike some, I am much less complacent about all this not escalating to nukes.
It's said that there are three groups amongst observers re. the nuke-threat :
1) Those who say nukes have only been used once in war - and since that was nearly 80 years ago it means they won't ever be used again.
2) Those who believe absolutely that deterrence (Mutually Assured Destruction) will guarantee nukes will never be used again.
3) Those who don't at all accept the complacency of view 1, and are not completely confident about view 2.
I'm in this 3rd group.
It’s not complacency to believe nukes won’t be used.
Unless you believe there is no logic left, even twisted, warped logic, then what would be the reasoning behind using them?
They’re great as a threat, they serve very little use and cause a ton of problems from delivery to tactical reasoning when being deployed.
And MAD is very much a thing, the rest of the world won’t distinguish between a ‘tactical’ nuke and a normal one, they’ll be firing up the silos as soon as Russia go to deploy and at that stage, you’re reliant on everyone under Putin having a deathwish, which they don’t/won’t.
Unless you believe there is no logic left, even twisted, warped logic, then what would be the reasoning behind using them?
They’re great as a threat, they serve very little use and cause a ton of problems from delivery to tactical reasoning when being deployed.
And MAD is very much a thing, the rest of the world won’t distinguish between a ‘tactical’ nuke and a normal one, they’ll be firing up the silos as soon as Russia go to deploy and at that stage, you’re reliant on everyone under Putin having a deathwish, which they don’t/won’t.
If Putin really decided to use nukes, where would he even start? In Ukraine? In a NATO country that has nukes as well?
How would the response of the NATO probably look like?
Calm?
Or total nuclear annihilation of all Russian military bases and places where they have nukes?
These are very sad and crazy times but I still think the chances that this will escalate to a nuclear war are less than 1%.
How would the response of the NATO probably look like?
Calm?
Or total nuclear annihilation of all Russian military bases and places where they have nukes?
These are very sad and crazy times but I still think the chances that this will escalate to a nuclear war are less than 1%.
While I agree the chances are remote, there is a wildcard in all of this and that is Putin and his physical and mental health.
People who are in power for decades unchallenged, have a tendency to feel untouchable. This combined with whisperings that he's in ill health, give me little confidence that the Russian administration will act rationally should their campaign in Ukraine continue to stall and falter.
You just wonder if Liz Truss and her constant provocation would make the UK their primary target. We already know she's pissed them off at least twice.
Then again, if they were to launch at the UK, they'd have to hit the rest of NATO simultaneously and pre-emptively to have any chance of gaining some kind of upper hand. We'd all be fecked in that case.
Putin said multiple times that the worst thing in his life was the downfall of the soviet union.
I think his main motivation in this (and probably eyeing other counties in the next years if he succeeds) is to be hailed as some kind of "creator of the new soviet union" in history.
If he decides to lunch nukes history will only judge him as the worst lunatic and criminal of mankind that is responsible for the (complete?) distruction of Russia and the death of possibly millions around Europe.
Even if he's terminally ill and Russia is on the brink of losing this war he can't see any positive outcome of launching nukes, can he?
Is that the guy whose YouTubes you were spamming earlier? I’d be wary of using him as a reference point in this context.
How would the West always know when a tactical nuke is deployed and made ready to fire? How do you know that the first knowledge of it won't come until the thing detonates?
And how do you know that Putin isn't willing to gamble on a belief that the West won't fire a nuke in return for fear of the consequences? And how do you know that the Russian officers involved in the nuclear launch sequence won't be hard-core and brainwashed nationalists who - perhaps like Putin - might either believe that the West won't retaliate, or else that a nuclear war is winnable?
Last edited:
Aside from not trusting random Youtubers with crap thumbnails, suggesting Putin is planning on trying to nuke a NATO country before using a tactical nuke in Ukraine reduces one’s credibility.
He didn't say that Putin is planning to nuke a NATO country before using a tactical nuke in Ukraine. He said that if Putin uses a tactical nuke, it will not be on Ukraine but on a NATO country, probably a military, non-civilian target. He says that people in West make a mistake in assuming that this is a war primarily against Ukraine, when in fact (he says) this is a prelude to war against his real target - the West.
Nor is he a just a random Youtuber. He was born in Soviet Russia, his channel has nearly 18,000 subscribers, and he comes across as extremely knowledgeable, very articulate, and as having extensive connections. Nor is it a case of my trusting what he says to be true. I'm simply open to listening to a wide range of viewpoints - and find his views to be perhaps more credible than many of us, including myself, would like to believe.
He believes that: "This is a defensive, existential war in Putin's mind - in which either he manages to radically change the international order (he can't) or Russia (not separable from him in his mind) will have no meaningful future. So, there is no necessary upper limit of escalation for him."
I thought Mr. Vexler was saying Putin was interested in using the increased threat of nuclear war to influence the thinking of the West. Not that he thinks he'll launch any.
Does she understand that NATO countries can strike Russian targets within Russia?
They'd be idiots to attack NATO, there's no benefit.
Exactly. You need to play the long game and carefully when you have an egotistic despot like Putin with nukes.
I'm genuinely wondering how these spies managed to kill British citizens in the UK.
Perhaps there is nothing else they can do at this moment. For their public, I mean. They can only utter meaningless threats.
They know they failed to take Kiev. They know they have lost a lot of personnel and equipment. They know that the West is now providing high tech heavy equipment (for example M777 artillery) and soon things may get worse for them in the battlefield.
They had probably learned how to blend in after acquiring all those Sims.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...itary-aid-live#block-626a14f68f08c0ca339aa984
Fiona Harvey
Russia has nearly doubled its revenues from selling fossil fuels to the EU during the two months of war in Ukraine, benefiting from soaring prices even as volumes have been reduced, Guardian reporter Fiona Harvey writes for us today.
Russia has received about €62bn from exports of oil, gas and coal in the two months since the invasion began, according to an analysis of shipping movements and cargos by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
For the EU, imports were about €44bn for the past two months, compared with about €140bn for the whole of last year, or roughly €12bn a month.
The findings demonstrate how Russia has continued to benefit from its stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply, even while governments have frantically sought to prevent Vladimir Putin using oil and gas as an economic weapon.
Fiona Harvey
Russia has nearly doubled its revenues from selling fossil fuels to the EU during the two months of war in Ukraine, benefiting from soaring prices even as volumes have been reduced, Guardian reporter Fiona Harvey writes for us today.
Russia has received about €62bn from exports of oil, gas and coal in the two months since the invasion began, according to an analysis of shipping movements and cargos by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
For the EU, imports were about €44bn for the past two months, compared with about €140bn for the whole of last year, or roughly €12bn a month.
The findings demonstrate how Russia has continued to benefit from its stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply, even while governments have frantically sought to prevent Vladimir Putin using oil and gas as an economic weapon.
Someone is playing stupid as an act of resistance. That's the most plausible explanation for this for me.