Will Russia invade Ukraine and what happens if it escalates with NATO/US getting involved

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, Si1 said:

Yeah @Staffsknot  stop it

Obviously UK 70s TV series just made it to Russia, he's off to watch Butterflies and The Good Life next

[Staffsknot]

3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Taiwan is a province of China. Its sovereignty (and that of the mainland) was legally determined by a vote in the United Nations. Remember, the rule of law that you previously pretended to be animated by? The world does not recognise the insurrectionists' claims to the island and it never will.

It's the NATO terrorists who keep linking Taiwan with the civil war in the Ukraine and the genocide in Palestine. I'm merely expanding on their devious and dishonest intentions. See last night's vote in the US Congress. An outrageous provocation.

Chinese socialism works while the rentier capitalist West is stuck semi-permanently in reverse gear. The US isn't even capitalist preferring a spavin-hocked form of cartelism instead. Will it survive a second Trump presidency? I doubt it.

 

But but but Zug screams self-determination everywhere else... surely its a civil war and other stupid bleatings he hypocritically does when suits

[satsuma]

Senate approves aid for Ukraine, Taiwan and others, not what PooTin was hoping for 

[Si1]

42 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Obviously UK 70s TV series just made it to Russia, he's off to watch Butterflies and The Good Life next

North Koreas the best place to go for a holiday for the TV 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68664644

 

 

 

[zugzwang]

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

 

Might I kindly suggest that you f**k off instead. And learn some history while you're about it!

The United Nations recognised the People's Republic of China as the sole, lawful representative of the Chinese people by a majority vote in 1971, in the process acknowledging the PRC's sovereign authority over the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan and comprehensively rejecting the competing claims of Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist regime (supported by the Americans) whose representatives were then expelled.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758

On 15 July 1971, 17 UN members: Albania, Algeria, the Congo, Cuba, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, North Yemen, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Yugoslavia, and Zambia, requested that a question of the "Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations" be placed on the provisional agenda of the twenty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly.^[4] In an explanatory memorandum accompanying their request, the 17 UN members observed that for years they had protested against what they considered were hostile and discriminatory policy followed by several governments with regard to the communist government of mainland China, which they considered to be the genuine representative of the Chinese people.^[4] The existence of the People's Republic of China, they declared, was a reality which could “not be changed to suit the myth of a so called Republic of China, fabricated out of a portion of Chinese territory”.^[4] In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces.^[4] No important international problems, they added, could be solved without the participation of the People's Republic of China. It was in the fundamental interests, they concluded, of the United Nations to "restore" promptly to the People's Republic of China its seat in the organization, thus putting an end to a "grave injustice" and "dangerous situation" which had been perpetuated in order to fulfill a policy that had been increasingly repudiated.^[4] This meant the immediate expulsion of the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek regime from the seat which it held in the United Nations.^[4]

 

[zugzwang]

2 hours ago, Grayphil said:

10 quid says the world will recognise "the insurrectionist claim to the island"

Essentially do you just like the potential slaughter of innocents that will benefit bo one apart from Xi's ego?

 

The UK, like most other countries, including the US and the EU, does not recognise Taiwan as a state, nor does it maintain formal diplomatic relations with the island. To do so would be tantamount to restarting the Chinese Civil War and taking the nationalist side. The mainland's defence against such treachery would swift and overwhelming.

[yelims]

2 hours ago, satsuma said:

Senate approves aid for Ukraine, Taiwan and others, not what PooTin was hoping for 

Biden signed it now

HIMARs rain coming to a Russian scum filled trenches 

[yelims]

26 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

The UK, like most other countries, including the US and the EU, does not recognise Taiwan as a state, nor does it maintain formal diplomatic relations with the island. To do so would be tantamount to restarting the Chinese Civil War and taking the nationalist side. The mainland's defence against such treachery would swift and overwhelming.

But supporting Russia by China is not tantamount to throwing fire in what you erroneously call a civil war? 🤣

[Si1]

14 minutes ago, yelims said:

Biden signed it now

HIMARs rain coming to a Russian scum filled trenches 

I'm a little disconcerted they didn't keep the details secret

[satsuma]

15 minutes ago, yelims said:

Biden signed it now

HIMARs rain coming to a Russian scum filled trenches 

More like, Ukrainian women, children and the old saved from a slow torture and then death at the hands of Russian orcs.  

Previous advisory applies, Russians should make sure they prepare to surrender during daylight hours, and before they are running, to avoid unfortunate incidents, it’s hard to spot white flags at night etc.  Better also to surrender now before the prison camps are full or you are being chased by an angry Ukrainian 

[Grayphil]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

 

The UK, like most other countries, including the US and the EU, does not recognise Taiwan as a state, nor does it maintain formal diplomatic relations with the island. To do so would be tantamount to restarting the Chinese Civil War and taking the nationalist side. The mainland's defence against such treachery would swift and overwhelming.

Do you support the potential war upon Taiwan by China?

 

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

19 hours ago, Quiet Guy said:

If you look at what starts wars, isn't this actually normal? I mean a horrendous blood bath over something initially relatively trivial. Once a war gets going, it can be really hard to get it to stop.

Putin was apparently advised that the Russian army could do a "Thunder Run" into Kiev abd it would all be over in a few weeks. We all know how that went.

I'm not supporting this war (there had to be a better way) but consider some words about the "unprovoked" attack:

 

You are dead right but facts and historical context don't fly well on this thread. It's hard for some to realise their media and gov't is the biggest distributor of misinformation, as the guy says in the video, once seen it cannot be unseen. This ain't an informed democracy, ironically it is more like a cloaked tyrannical duopoly one party authoritarian state. The pro war cheerleaders on this thread think we are free, don't even know they're in a cage of deception. Ironically, such techniques were originally developed and employed by Nazi Germany and extended by the old Soviet Union. We are in yet another western psyOp, in which we will be tolerated until the number of people to wake up becomes a significant percentage to threaten and challenge for change.

 

[yelims]

42 minutes ago, Si1 said:

I'm a little disconcerted they didn't keep the details secret

They have to declare it due to some law, but on bright side it ******s psychologically with Russians 

[bumble bee]

59 minutes ago, yelims said:

Biden signed it now

HIMARs rain coming to a Russian scum filled trenches 

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for ...

Russia to Push Ukraine Further Back if Kyiv Gets Long Range U.S. Missiles

Russia will need to push Ukrainian forces further back and expand what it regards as a "buffer zone" if Kyiv takes delivery of advanced longer-range ATACM guided missile systems from the United States, the Kremlin said on Wednesday.

The Kremlin said last month that the only way to protect Russian territory from Ukrainian attacks - which it says includes four regions Moscow has annexed from Ukraine - is to have "a buffer zone" so that territory is beyond the range of Ukrainian fire.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-04-24/russia-will-expand-ukraine-buffer-zone-if-kyiv-gets-longer-range-missiles-says-kremlin

[Grayphil]

1 hour ago, bumble bee said:

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for ...

Russia to Push Ukraine Further Back if Kyiv Gets Long Range U.S. Missiles

Russia will need to push Ukrainian forces further back and expand what it regards as a "buffer zone" if Kyiv takes delivery of advanced longer-range ATACM guided missile systems from the United States, the Kremlin said on Wednesday.

The Kremlin said last month that the only way to protect Russian territory from Ukrainian attacks - which it says includes four regions Moscow has annexed from Ukraine - is to have "a buffer zone" so that territory is beyond the range of Ukrainian fire.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-04-24/russia-will-expand-ukraine-buffer-zone-if-kyiv-gets-longer-range-missiles-says-kremlin

Ah makes complete sense, Russia has just been playing for the last 2 years, in reality if putin wanted to advance he could just click his glittery red shoes together and her presto, Kansas, sorry Kyiv here we come baby.

[Grayphil]

I know I have come in for a bit of flack here for supporting some of Trumps ideas, and to be clear I now think he is a dangerous loonie criminal that shouldn't be near office.

However he did mention about the rest of the west needing to foot the bill for NATO, and not leave the bulk to the US, in this he is correct.

It seems that Europe is slowly waking up to the very real threat of Russia. 

Potentially defense spending will raise over all of NATO to 2.5% 

I suspect this is partly because NATO needs to develop better/cheaper defences against drones etc, which have look to have revolutionised warfare 

[Flat Bear]

10 hours ago, Si1 said:

I get that feeling too. Also the lack of US support for a while is almost the west showing a bit of leg to Russia to get them to overcommit to Ukraine. A strategic trap.

Given that the wider geostrategic issue is about breaking Russia's ability to fight them despite the short term costs to Ukraine it may be worth it even for Ukraine.

Interesting times. Hidden agendas.

10 hours ago, satsuma said:

I don’t know that it’s a case of this being planned, the US was in a tight spot due to its share of lunatic politicians.  I do think the US are getting a lot for their money in terms of weakening Russia.  It’s sounds like the aid will in theory allow Ukraine to fight on, but it will by no means allow a win, there are years of Russian stockpiles left.  Remember that Germany in the end sent teenage boys to the front, Russia will continue until they just cant continue.  

You are right it is very unlikely to be a massive conspiracy. BUT from self preservation and self interest the narrative is being written by the few that can actually control the situation.

The very worst case scenario for Putin's Russia is a drawn out conflicts with numerous factions from within and without whilst economic sanctions isolate the country. Of course this is not sustainable over a long period and every day Russia weakens militarily and economically. It is a boiling frog situation.

The best option for those opposed to Putin's Russia is the current one where Ukraine is slowly being annexed by Russia inch by inch at a tremendous military and economic cost. What's not to like for the USA? They are destroying one of their biggest enemies without any loss of American lives, with a relatively small amount of aid, where they can try out new military hardware in battle situations and gain total knowledge of what Russia could throw at them in any possible direct future conflict. Every day the point where Russia weakens itself to where it has nothing else left to fight with nears. Nuclear is still on the table and I am sure this is being looked into very seriously indeed.

There is very strong case for the US not to send any more weaponry or military aid to Ukraine at all, or as little as possible as I have alluded to before. The weaker Ukraine becomes, paradoxically, the sooner Putin's Russia fails.

I disagree that there are years of Russian stockpiles left, this is, has become, a war of logistics and economics. The consensus seems to be that Russia can last out 24 months but looking at the figures everything is showing real problems within a few months.

10 hours ago, Si1 said:

I believe Russia have about 5 years of human and technical reserves left. Which means they won't get to Kyiv.

I disagree. But I am very interested in how you came to this conclusion. I could well be wrong.

9 hours ago, bumble bee said:

North of Ocheretyne Russian forces were focusing much of their efforts on capturing the strategic town of Chasiv Yar. If they take control of the town, which sits on high ground in the eastern Donetsk region, they would have a strong foothold from which they could launch new assaults on the garrison cities of Kostyantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk and Slovyansk. Russia would also gain firing positions over important highways and a railway line connecting those cities to Kyiv.

I try very hard not to engage with fools. Please read what you posted above. I will attempt to explain.

Rollover you are a Putin sympathiser? Correct?

What you are saying above.

Russian forces "were"? (do you mean they are and will be trying to?) putting tremendous resources of military hardware and the lives of Russian servicemen in an attempt to capture the "strategic" town of Chasiv Yar. In fact they will be focusing on it.

"If", well if they are prepared to put everything into it and lose multitudes of Russian troops and hardware. As the massive losses grow they will not want to back down.  This is on the cards to be the biggest pyrrhic victory of all times.

We no longer say crossing the Rubicon but will change it to capturing Chaiv Yar.

You actually tell us that Chasiv Yar sits on high ground in a very good defendable position where from a strong foothold assaults, more easily defensive strikes, can be launched to the lower grounds all around. Firing positions over important highways and railways.

You did fail to mention there are a number of cannels waterways and other natural obstacles that the Russian forces would need to navigate to attempt to take this town directly.

Attack would need to be direct as all attempts by Russian forces to create pincher movements so far have failed at great losses.

Do you really think this is a good idea? I realize you have zero knowledge of tactics or military stuff but come on you must see how really b###dy stupid you are here.

9 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I am not sure I see that. And I mean that as in it being my failure.

Armies tend to get stronger as wars progress as the war footing increases. And surely they are no longer intending to try to take Kyiv? The guerilla warfare would not be sustainable?

Armies get more battle hardened and used to the idea of war and its repercussions but they get weaker as losses in personnel and hardware grows. IF replacement is greater than loss then you would have a point.

Russia is weakening on all fronts daily.

Ukraine has become stronger on all fronts and in particular drone capacity and advancement,

You are correct that Putin has lowered his ambitions from taking the whole of Ukraine to taking a small village with 2 shops and an outside toilet.

6 hours ago, yelims said:

Let’s just stop and admire that three years into three days war Russian Nazis started their ambition has downsized from all of Ukraine to a city 20km from the border they couldn’t reach 

Yes, Putin is lowering his expectations by the hour.

[Si1]

6 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

 

I disagree. But I am very interested in how you came to this conclusion. I could well be wrong.

 

3 and half minutes in -

 

 

[satsuma]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68886406

PooTin now having to remove people to stop his own removal 

[satsuma]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68886406

PooTin now having to remove people to stop his own removal 

[Flat Bear]

11 minutes ago, Si1 said:

3 and half minutes in -

 

 

Thanks for the link.

I agree with most of what this guy is saying. 

BUT he is really overestimating the Russian reserves. His conclusion that Russia can last another 5 to 8 years does not compute in what he says himself in Russian losses and problems Russia will have going forward.

This is the most pro Russian estimate (from non Russian partisan viewpoint) I have seen.

A lot of estimates from those that seem to know what they are talking about say they could last out 2 years upto 2 and a half years BUT they also say there are many other negative factors that would shorten this timeline.

So my own conclusion would be that if there are no further problems that Russia faces and everything stays relatively stable for Russia they could at the very outside last out another 2 and a half years.

But what is the chances of internal strife? Of attacks on the Russian state from 3rd parties? Of ukraine starting a massive and prolonged drone campaign? Of the west providing Ukraine with more military aid? Or the multitude of other things that could derail Putin's Russia. I think the odds are extremely high.

But this is my own conclusion and maybe I am biased in favour of Ukraine?

[Si1]

7 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

Thanks for the link.

I agree with most of what this guy is saying. 

BUT he is really overestimating the Russian reserves. His conclusion that Russia can last another 5 to 8 years does not compute in what he says himself in Russian losses and problems Russia will have going forward.

This is the most pro Russian estimate (from non Russian partisan viewpoint) I have seen.

A lot of estimates from those that seem to know what they are talking about say they could last out 2 years upto 2 and a half years BUT they also say there are many other negative factors that would shorten this timeline.

So my own conclusion would be that if there are no further problems that Russia faces and everything stays relatively stable for Russia they could at the very outside last out another 2 and a half years.

But what is the chances of internal strife? Of attacks on the Russian state from 3rd parties? Of ukraine starting a massive and prolonged drone campaign? Of the west providing Ukraine with more military aid? Or the multitude of other things that could derail Putin's Russia. I think the odds are extremely high.

But this is my own conclusion and maybe I am biased in favour of Ukraine?

Fair enough . All interesting to me. I want Putin's Russia (not the russian people particularly) brought to heel and more before my own kids are conscription age.

[Flat Bear]

11 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Fair enough . All interesting to me. I want Putin's Russia (not the russian people particularly) brought to heel and more before my own kids are conscription age.

I suppose we may get some clues on May 9th in Red Square, Putin will want to show off his latest weaponry and the might of Russia. Will be interesting to see what is on show. Latest tank? Latest fighter jet?

[Confusion of VIs]

8 minutes ago, Flat Bear said:

I suppose we may get some clues on May 9th in Red Square, Putin will want to show off his latest weaponry and the might of Russia. Will be interesting to see what is on show. Latest tank? Latest fighter jet?

Latest Ukrainian drone in action perhaps.

[yelims]

1 hour ago, bumble bee said:

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for ...

Russia to Push Ukraine Further Back if Kyiv Gets Long Range U.S. Missiles

Russia will need to push Ukrainian forces further back and expand what it regards as a "buffer zone" if Kyiv takes delivery of advanced longer-range ATACM guided missile systems from the United States, the Kremlin said on Wednesday.

The Kremlin said last month that the only way to protect Russian territory from Ukrainian attacks - which it says includes four regions Moscow has annexed from Ukraine - is to have "a buffer zone" so that territory is beyond the range of Ukrainian fire.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-04-24/russia-will-expand-ukraine-buffer-zone-if-kyiv-gets-longer-range-missiles-says-kremlin

Let me get this straight the Russians haven’t done so three years into their three day war because??? What?

lol pathetic