Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I would have thought one important target would be the Crimean bridge as all the supplies for the advance from there has to be coming over it.
Well, no it isn't. We're not in a court-of-law, so you don't have to prove things to a legal standard, especially if it's to a paranoid nut-case. If 20 tonnes of bombs get dropped on a convoy and there is nothing visible on any detection system, do you really think their reasoning will be " We couldn't see anything, therefore there was nothing, therefore this must have been a natural phenomenon of very violent localised wind or ,something " ? I don't think so.
You are also ignoring the fact that bombs/missiles do not destroy themselves down to the molecular level: there are always fragments that can be identified, especially if they have helpful part-nos painted on.
You are also ignoring the fact that bombs/missiles do not destroy themselves down to the molecular level: there are always fragments that can be identified, especially if they have helpful part-nos painted on.
There are other low observable platforms you might consider for this sort of task, in the unlikely event that the risk of escalating beyond the current, single state-on-state conflict is suddenly acceptable at a political level. A prudent commander would also want to keep his strategic bombers up his sleeve, with a similarly strategic warload, rather than potentially blow any of them on a limited tactical task.
There are reasons the 'convoy of doom' has not made significant progress for several days now, including choice of route, road conditions (mud), maintenance issues (collapsed hubs and other mobility failures), logistics (fuel) and the minor inconvenience of UKR forces achieving selective mobility kills with a variety of air and ground systems which have generated further road blocks. Getting it all moving again - so that it becomes a genuine threat - is going to take a great deal of time and effort. Time will tell whether this turns out to be a monumental own goal by the Russians but, on the open source information I am seeing, it is looking that way at the moment.
Obviously nobody know what is in Putin mind.
But consider this as a possible scenario.
Russia pressures Sweden (And Finland) about not joining NATO. Sweden refuses point blank.
Russian threats escalate but Sweden does not budge.
Do it or you will regret it say Russia.
Then Putin throws a small tactical nuclear weapon – maybe somewhere almost uninhabited in northern Sweden - a small military installation say.
Putin has shown he will use nuclear weapons to back his promises – without fear of getting anything back in return.
What can Sweden do? Nothing
What will Nato do? Nothing!
Then he threatens NATO and the Baltic states.
The Baltic states are mine – give them to me or I will use nukes.
He then says NATO countries that DON’T defend the Baltic States WON’T get Nuked.
Would everyone stick together?
Would Belgium, Netherlands, Germany stand tall?
Does NATO resolve crack? Are the Baltic States given over to avert WW3?
Possible?
Just random thoughts while I was mowing the lawn!
But consider this as a possible scenario.
Russia pressures Sweden (And Finland) about not joining NATO. Sweden refuses point blank.
Russian threats escalate but Sweden does not budge.
Do it or you will regret it say Russia.
Then Putin throws a small tactical nuclear weapon – maybe somewhere almost uninhabited in northern Sweden - a small military installation say.
Putin has shown he will use nuclear weapons to back his promises – without fear of getting anything back in return.
What can Sweden do? Nothing
What will Nato do? Nothing!
Then he threatens NATO and the Baltic states.
The Baltic states are mine – give them to me or I will use nukes.
He then says NATO countries that DON’T defend the Baltic States WON’T get Nuked.
Would everyone stick together?
Would Belgium, Netherlands, Germany stand tall?
Does NATO resolve crack? Are the Baltic States given over to avert WW3?
Possible?
Just random thoughts while I was mowing the lawn!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I don’t think it would, I feel it would trigger a response, plus why on earth would he open up a second front, it makes no sense.
This fact makes it worthwhile opposing Putin by all imaginable means necessary. Even nuclear if he starts throwing them.
The point I was making was
1) He could use Sweden or Finland to use a Nuke with little real chance of anything coming back at him.
2) Once he has used a Nuke the rules are very different
3) He could use the 'real' threat of Nukes then to pressure the break up of NATO
seems logical to me
1) He could use Sweden or Finland to use a Nuke with little real chance of anything coming back at him.
2) Once he has used a Nuke the rules are very different
3) He could use the 'real' threat of Nukes then to pressure the break up of NATO
seems logical to me
For many watching Syrians, living under Russian strikes is all deja vu.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...an-air-attacks
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/...an-air-attacks
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Part of Moldova was on the map for occupation. I hope not as they seem a nice country and people.
I can only see two possible ways for this to end and both are the removal of Putin, one sooner rather than later.
He has been the architect of his own humiliation; the invasion of Ukraine has been a miscalculation of colossal proportions. At the very best he will be left fighting an insurgency that he cannot win with the weight of global sanctions sending the Russian economy back to the days of bartering. He appears to have a poorly equipped and provisioned conventional army, with little will to fight their closest neighbour and will soon have a severely impoverished general population of Russia. This alone may be enough to bring about his demise from within.
If it isn't, he may be tempted to show that Russia still has teeth in the form a limited display of nuclear power. At which point, there would be no option other than the rest of the world issuing an ultimatum - withdraw immediately from Ukraine and get rid of Putin. The use of nuclear weapons can never be permitted. Make it absolutely clear that failure to comply within 48 hours would lead to any Russian military hardware outside of Russia being pulverised and no Russians being allowed to leave their own borders or trade with the rest of the world for decades to come. Also make it clear that no coalition force would ever contemplate a first nuclear strike and that there would be no attempt to attack Russian soil, but that MAD would be the inevitable result of anyone within Russia thinking that a second nuke was the answer.
As someone who would almost certainly be a part of any military action in the second scenario, I hope the first materialises any day now.
He has been the architect of his own humiliation; the invasion of Ukraine has been a miscalculation of colossal proportions. At the very best he will be left fighting an insurgency that he cannot win with the weight of global sanctions sending the Russian economy back to the days of bartering. He appears to have a poorly equipped and provisioned conventional army, with little will to fight their closest neighbour and will soon have a severely impoverished general population of Russia. This alone may be enough to bring about his demise from within.
If it isn't, he may be tempted to show that Russia still has teeth in the form a limited display of nuclear power. At which point, there would be no option other than the rest of the world issuing an ultimatum - withdraw immediately from Ukraine and get rid of Putin. The use of nuclear weapons can never be permitted. Make it absolutely clear that failure to comply within 48 hours would lead to any Russian military hardware outside of Russia being pulverised and no Russians being allowed to leave their own borders or trade with the rest of the world for decades to come. Also make it clear that no coalition force would ever contemplate a first nuclear strike and that there would be no attempt to attack Russian soil, but that MAD would be the inevitable result of anyone within Russia thinking that a second nuke was the answer.
As someone who would almost certainly be a part of any military action in the second scenario, I hope the first materialises any day now.
Makes no sense. Conventional Russian forces showing themselves to be way below expectations and no threat to NATO ( probably ). That only leaves the nuclear blackmail, and if Putin used it once and it worked, it's very likely he - or his successor - would use it again in five or ten years. Definitely not clever to go down that route as hindsight) shows us how he views salami tactics: Georgia, Crimea, E Ukranian separatist "states" and now the whole of Ukraine ( and maybe more )
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Even under the threat of nuclear retaliation I’m not sure the non-intervention policy could hold if Putin, frustrated by the failure of his military campaign, resorts to committing atrocities in an attempt to crush Ukrainian resistance. Public executions? Ethnic cleansing? Concentration camps? Chemical/biological attack? All too believable.
There have been fleets of tankers up for days - 5 at one point yesterday - who are they refuelling?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 46
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoons from the UK participated with a Voyager from Brize Norton along with RAF F-35Bs (presumably more for sensor use than AD).
"I still think that it's entirely possible that Chamberlain knew exactly what he was doing" by Sue
In the book, 6 minutes in May on Churchill's succession to take over as PM from Chaimberlain, Chamberlain was clear that he did not trust Hitler and expected him to break the agreement, so I think SV is correct
In the book, 6 minutes in May on Churchill's succession to take over as PM from Chaimberlain, Chamberlain was clear that he did not trust Hitler and expected him to break the agreement, so I think SV is correct
Perhaps you could advise us which of the following titles originate from Russia or its sympathisers:
Russia Threaten Sweden and Finland | Both Nordic Countries Want to Join Nato
Ukraine Bayraktar TB2 Drones Strike and Destroy Russian Convoys
Ukrainian Armed Forces Capture TOS-1A Thermobaric Rocket Launcher
Russian Fighter Jets SU-27 and SU-24 Invade Swedish Airspace
Russia 40-Mile-Long Convoy Stuck For Three Days Due to 'Mechanical Problems'
Ukraine Bayraktar TB2 Drones Strike and Destroy Russian Convoys
Ukrainian Armed Forces Capture TOS-1A Thermobaric Rocket Launcher
Russian Fighter Jets SU-27 and SU-24 Invade Swedish Airspace
Russia 40-Mile-Long Convoy Stuck For Three Days Due to 'Mechanical Problems'