|
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11194394)
Europe alone currently spends c.3 times as much on defence as Russia. This multiple could rise to 4 or more given Germany's and others recent announcements, and Russia's economic travails.
Originally Posted by dead_pan,11194394
Also, its become patently obvious that Europe has absolutely nothing to fear from Russia's conventional forces.
What is absolutely certain is that there is a mobster with what appears to be a limited grasp on reality in charge in Moscow. He cannot (and will not) back down - there is no so-called off-ramp for him that Ukraine can live with. The only way out of this is to ramp up the pressure until eventually those around the Problem have to solve the Problem. Hopefully quickly - and painfully for the Problem. |
Nuclear plants should have a 20 mile exclusion zone around them in times of conflict agreed by all nations.
|
And all parties to a war always follow the 'rules', right ? :hmm:
|
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 11194406)
NATO going in WOULD be a nuclear disaster!
|
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11194386)
Fixed, free of charge.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states. |
Originally Posted by Beamr
(Post 11194322)
An opinion from a Russian who knows his game of chess.
to make it short: Putin will attack the west if he is not stopped now. Either it is done now and Ukrainian lives are saved or it is done later with the addition of genocide in Ukraine. |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11194422)
Comparisons with Russian spend are perhaps irrelevant. Comparisons with the NATO minimum contribution may be more illuminating - as might be a discussion on where the more valuable capabilities in NATO might be found.
Not a view that you would have got much support for one week ago. |
Originally Posted by henra
(Post 11194441)
Simply not an option. And apart from some armchair internet heroes everyone in power is well aware of this.
An Estonian ship is reportedly sunk "following an explosion", whilst near a Ukranian port. Estonia is in NATO. Is that the attack on a NATO member that triggers action? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11194448)
Having read the whole thread on Twitter, I can't say that Kasparov makes a particularly convincing argument. Perhaps he should stick to the day job.
|
|
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11194442)
I didn't say it was a perfect solution and would be absolutely reliant on the 27 countries actually pulling together and fronting up with cash. However such a force, were it to exist, would have the ability to intervene in Ukraine and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia to challenge Russian aggression and expansionist policies.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11194442)
I didn't say it was a perfect solution and would be absolutely reliant on the 27 countries actually pulling together and fronting up with cash. However such a force, were it to exist, would have the ability to intervene in Ukraine and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia to challenge Russian aggression and expansionist policies.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states. I can't see that principle changing massively under an EU construct. Look at the issues around qualified majority voting - can you honestly see the 27 signing up to allow the Commission to commit their forces to combat? All it would do is duplicate command structures and add confusion. It would also require the EU to duplicate the top end capabilities - and logistics mass - provided by the US (and to a degree the UK). |
Originally Posted by admikar
(Post 11194461)
Yeah, but he is in line with ongoing "Russians are BAD!" sentiment, hence the attention he gets.
The world in general does not have a problem with Russians as people. It does have a problem with the psychotic gangster in charge and would probably breathe a sigh of relief if he succumbed to the window safety issues that appear to be prevalent in Russia. |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11194463)
Trying to figue out how to get it into service?
|
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11194458)
Turns out we have more than enough conventional capability, air power in particular. Russian forces would be swept aside with ease. I suspect Vlad has got this message loud and clear, hence his threats to go nuclear - that's all he has left in the locker.
Yup, I think people were taken in by all the Russian propaganda (e.g. all that S400/Su57 blah blah BS). Personally I had my doubts about their capabilities, given their leaden performances in Syria, Libya, their non-intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh etc. The signs were definitely there. |
Picked from elsewhere:
I think this is a perfectly apt summary of Vladimir Putin's thinking, taken from another discussion: * You are the Russian president, essentially the lifetime ruler of the world's largest state, which stretches over a sixth of the landmass - the time difference between Crimea and New Chaplin is 11.5 hours * You've got Ukraine in your near border area, which has long been divided into "pro-Russian" and "pro-Western" parts * The access you have to your military base in Crimea is anything but certain and secure in the long term, but you simply can't (and won't) give up Sevastopol * who you send to the Ukraine are effectively conscripted boys - if the lads can take the whole Ukraine on the fly, great. It didn't cost you much and you got more than you wanted (at this stage). - the boys won't do too well there? OK, you'll "sell" the loss of a few hundred soldiers to your people as "the heroic struggle of our children against fascism" - and you'll send more soldiers after them, but already heavily armed professionals, who will turn the "western" Ukraine (which you don't want) into scorched earth and to "eastern Ukraine" bring the remains of the "young heroes who fell for the liberation of Novorossiya from the fascist yoke" And with Novorossiya there will be a "brotherhood sealed with blood" - you cannot lose militarily, because your army is objectively stronger than the army of Ukraine and nobody else can intervene militarily there, because you have nuclear weapons - economic sanctions won't hurt you personally and you'll pose it as a question of honour to the ordinary Russians - "do you choose national pride or slavery to Western fascists"? - The only ones who can protest significantly are the rich oligarchs. But when you ascended to the throne 20 years ago, you "cleansed the motherland" of those wealthy Western sellouts and thieves" that arose under Yeltsin - and the people applauded you then. - So you're going to destroy the western part of Ukraine, driving half a million or even a million people out of there - The West will be overwhelmed by the next wave of refugees. - You'll have safe access to Crimea. Well, if you can withstand (maybe) a year of (only partial) sanctions anyway, they will start working with you again because you have the raw materials they need You will keep "Novorossiya" (eastern Ukraine) and destroy the western part of Ukraine to make its revitalization very expensive for your enemies Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) |
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11194473)
The world in general does not have a problem with Russians as people. It does have a problem with the psychotic gangster in charge and would probably breathe a sigh of relief if he succumbed to the window safety issues that appear to be prevalent in Russia.
I had a weird moment of reverie yesterday when I imagined what would happen if Vlad was removed from power and Russia became a sane, responsible nation. How different would the world be? |
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11194476)
Yet another example of Russia's amateurism. Don't the crews have instructions to destroy such kit to prevent it falling into enemy hands?
|
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
(Post 11194477)
You are Captain Hindsight and I claim my five pounds.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11194463)
Trying to figue out how to get it into service? https://twitter.com/i/status/1499677142476599299
Originally Posted by dead_pan
(Post 11194476)
Yet another example of Russia's amateurism. Don't the crews have instructions to destroy such kit to prevent it falling into enemy hands?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:51. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.