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

[Staffsknot]

13 hours ago, Si1 said:

@Staffsknot @MonsieurCopperCrutch

 

 

Accidental you have to prove it was impossible to avoid and mitigating circumstances - ie case in Iraq where tank crew killed his Sgt who was in danger with GPMG as never taught beaten zone at close range. If thry had its a charge for recklessly killing.

See exact comments on the only one you could openly target as said. So all the other ****** that was spouted was exactly the hot air.

Not a fan of L Ron Hubbard book man or other Twitterati but they at least got that accurate.

PoWs are your responsibility - deliberate is a war crime, accidental can be war crime or negligent dereliction of duty.

But doesn't it show that the pages of excuses by the usual suspects are more of that idiotic myopic cheerleading I keep saying is harming Ukraine.

[Si1]

2 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Accidental you have to prove it was impossible to avoid and mitigating circumstances - ie case in Iraq where tank crew killed his Sgt who was in danger with GPMG as never taught beaten zone at close range. If thry had its a charge for recklessly killing.

Well that's the thing with conscripted soldiers on any side who won't have had as much training as ideal???

2 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

See exact comments on the only one you could openly target as said. So all the other ****** that was spouted was exactly the hot air.

Not a fan of L Ron Hubbard book man or other Twitterati but they at least got that accurate.

PoWs are your responsibility - deliberate is a war crime, accidental can be war crime or negligent dereliction of duty.

But doesn't it show that the pages of excuses by the usual suspects are more of that idiotic myopic cheerleading I keep saying is harming Ukraine.

 

[Si1]

Something large exploded in Moscow today.

[Maghull Mike]

 

[Si1]

5 minutes ago, Maghull Mike said:

 

Oh no not a YouTube video from some unknown bloke 

[Staffsknot]

2 hours ago, Si1 said:

Well that's the thing with conscripted soldiers on any side who won't have had as much training as ideal???

 

Again IHL is a mandatory thing enshringed in the training programme. You can't skip it for expedience or its a state level breach.

[Si1]

6 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Again IHL is a mandatory thing enshringed in the training programme. You can't skip it for expedience or its a state level breach.

Quite possibly a state level breach then.

[Staffsknot]

6 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Quite possibly a state level breach then.

I very much doubt that but we'll see. I think this is the point investigation needs to happen and not be brushed away.

[Si1]

Just now, Staffsknot said:

I very much doubt that but we'll see. I think this is the point investigation needs to happen and not be brushed away.

Oh yeah. It's certainly messy.

[pig]

5 hours ago, Peter Hun said:

I've blocked the ***hole.

But let me guess.. he's not calling for the Russians to leave occupied Ukraine, is he?

Apparently he's the threads self-proclaimed greatest pacifist.

To be fair if you kill everybody and take their land then you get peace no ?

[rollover]

Iran will help Russia build drones

Moscow and Tehran are said to agree on a plan to assemble Iranian-designed weapons on Russian soil.

After weeks of savaging Ukrainian cities with Iranian-made drones, Moscow has quietly reached an agreement with Tehran to begin manufacturing hundreds of unmanned weaponized aircraft on Russian soil, according to new intelligence seen by U.S. and other Western security agencies.

The agreement, if fully realized, would represent a further deepening of a Russia-Iran alliance that already has provided crucial support for Moscow’s faltering military campaign in Ukraine, the officials said. By acquiring its own assembly line, Russia could dramatically increase its stockpile of relatively inexpensive but highly destructive weapons systems that, in recent weeks, have changed the character of the Ukraine war.

washingtonpost

[shlomo]

3 hours ago, jonb2 said:

This is an interesting post Shlomo. Thank you.

Do you have a link for the source?

I have looked back at my history but cannot find the original source, it was from a US news agency, strange that I cannot find it

[Grayphil]

1 minute ago, rollover said:

Iran will help Russia build drones

Moscow and Tehran are said to agree on a plan to assemble Iranian-designed weapons on Russian soil.

After weeks of savaging Ukrainian cities with Iranian-made drones, Moscow has quietly reached an agreement with Tehran to begin manufacturing hundreds of unmanned weaponized aircraft on Russian soil, according to new intelligence seen by U.S. and other Western security agencies.

The agreement, if fully realized, would represent a further deepening of a Russia-Iran alliance that already has provided crucial support for Moscow’s faltering military campaign in Ukraine, the officials said. By acquiring its own assembly line, Russia could dramatically increase its stockpile of relatively inexpensive but highly destructive weapons systems that, in recent weeks, have changed the character of the Ukraine war.

washingtonpost

While the rest of the world basically agrees to provide Ukraine with air defences.

Turns out not many people like Iran either, with the whole 15,000 people being executed for wanting to have rights.

[shlomo]

3 hours ago, jonb2 said:

Thanks Si1. I've found it. But wondered if it was syndicated.

It's an interesting take I've been thinking about for a while. This lot must be more than a little bothered by their purchases.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296249/russia-arms-exports-by-country/

 

 

A good point it shows Western technology is significantly better than russia/china, without the Ukraine war this would not have been noticed, lets be honest to a armchair genius like me one tank is the same as another tank, but not so much anymore, the US is decades ahead of any other country, group or bloc

[shlomo]

7 minutes ago, Grayphil said:

While the rest of the world basically agrees to provide Ukraine with air defences.

Turns out not many people like Iran either, with the whole 15,000 people being executed for wanting to have rights.

If Russia is turning to Iran it shows that Russia does not have any tech or manufacturing capability in this area at all.

[jonb2]

21 minutes ago, shlomo said:

I have looked back at my history but cannot find the original source, it was from a US news agency, strange that I cannot find it

This is what came up when I searched.

It was probably syndicated.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia.html

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

26 minutes ago, rollover said:

Iran will help Russia build drones

Moscow and Tehran are said to agree on a plan to assemble Iranian-designed weapons on Russian soil.

After weeks of savaging Ukrainian cities with Iranian-made drones, Moscow has quietly reached an agreement with Tehran to begin manufacturing hundreds of unmanned weaponized aircraft on Russian soil, according to new intelligence seen by U.S. and other Western security agencies.

The agreement, if fully realized, would represent a further deepening of a Russia-Iran alliance that already has provided crucial support for Moscow’s faltering military campaign in Ukraine, the officials said. By acquiring its own assembly line, Russia could dramatically increase its stockpile of relatively inexpensive but highly destructive weapons systems that, in recent weeks, have changed the character of the Ukraine war.

washingtonpost

What’s your opinion of women’s rights in Iran comrade? Things seem to be getting hairy for the dictatorship there. 

[shlomo]

6 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

This is what came up when I searched.

It was probably syndicated.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia.html

 

Yes, when i Google I also get this, I never go to Russian or Ukrainian news agencies as they are so biased, this is the source I got it from

https://cepa.org/article/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia/

[shlomo]

@jonb2 (the rest of the article)

Third, the revelation that Russia’s defense industry is something of a Potemkin village also generates other strategic and diplomatic wins for the US. Countries eager to secure defense capability to meet their own threats – think of Turkey, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — might have opted for cheaper, “value” Russian defense offerings. However, with the quality/capability of this equipment now being questioned because of poor battlefield performance, they will likely be vying to acquire a better US kit. But this will require improved diplomatic relations. This is currently evident in the improved US–Pakistan relationship, with Pakistan securing upgrade kits for its F-16s. 

Fourth, helping Ukraine beat Russia surely also sends a powerful signal to China that the US and its allies are strong and determined when challenged on issues of core importance. This may raise questions in the minds of Xi Jinping and the People’s Liberation Army generals about their ability to win a conflict against countries armed with US/Western military technology, for example in Taiwan. Surely Russia’s difficulty in winning the war in Ukraine will cause second thoughts in China about the wisdom and perhaps the viability of efforts to conquer Taiwan. 

Fifth, the war in Ukraine is encouraging and accelerating the energy transition in Europe, but also Europe’s diversification away from Russian energy. Europe is desperately trying to source alternative energy supplies, and US liquefied natural gas (LNG) is proving to be the obvious beneficiary.  

In conclusion, on so many levels, continued US support for Ukraine is a no-brainer from a bang for buck perspective. Ukraine is no Vietnam or Afghanistan for the US, but it is exactly that for Russia. A Russia continually mired in a war it cannot win is a huge strategic win for the US.  

Why would anyone object to that? 

Timothy Ash is a Senior Emerging Markets Sovereign Strategist at RBC BlueBay Asset Management. He is an Associate Fellow at Chatham House on their Russia and Eurasian program. 

[satsuma]

46 minutes ago, shlomo said:

@jonb2 (the rest of the article)

Third, the revelation that Russia’s defense industry is something of a Potemkin village also generates other strategic and diplomatic wins for the US. Countries eager to secure defense capability to meet their own threats – think of Turkey, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — might have opted for cheaper, “value” Russian defense offerings. However, with the quality/capability of this equipment now being questioned because of poor battlefield performance, they will likely be vying to acquire a better US kit. But this will require improved diplomatic relations. This is currently evident in the improved US–Pakistan relationship, with Pakistan securing upgrade kits for its F-16s. 

Fourth, helping Ukraine beat Russia surely also sends a powerful signal to China that the US and its allies are strong and determined when challenged on issues of core importance. This may raise questions in the minds of Xi Jinping and the People’s Liberation Army generals about their ability to win a conflict against countries armed with US/Western military technology, for example in Taiwan. Surely Russia’s difficulty in winning the war in Ukraine will cause second thoughts in China about the wisdom and perhaps the viability of efforts to conquer Taiwan. 

Fifth, the war in Ukraine is encouraging and accelerating the energy transition in Europe, but also Europe’s diversification away from Russian energy. Europe is desperately trying to source alternative energy supplies, and US liquefied natural gas (LNG) is proving to be the obvious beneficiary.  

In conclusion, on so many levels, continued US support for Ukraine is a no-brainer from a bang for buck perspective. Ukraine is no Vietnam or Afghanistan for the US, but it is exactly that for Russia. A Russia continually mired in a war it cannot win is a huge strategic win for the US.  

Why would anyone object to that? 

Timothy Ash is a Senior Emerging Markets Sovereign Strategist at RBC BlueBay Asset Management. He is an Associate Fellow at Chatham House on their Russia and Eurasian program. 

My perspective is that Europe also has many reasons to back Ukraine, not least will be the ability of the EU to expand east and squire resources in people and materials, large members like Poland will want a buffer between them and Russia.    I also believe there will be a construction boom in 2023 as investment pours in.  The speed and depth of the Ukrainian counter offensive gives confidence in that Russia cannot walk in and take the place.  My only concern is the damage to the global economy done by Russia, this nonsense needs to come to a swift conclusion 

[shlomo]

2 minutes ago, satsuma said:

My perspective is that Europe also has many reasons to back Ukraine, not least will be the ability of the EU to expand east and squire resources in people and materials, large members like Poland will want a buffer between them and Russia.    I also believe there will be a construction boom in 2023 as investment pours in.  The speed and depth of the Ukrainian counter offensive gives confidence in that Russia cannot walk in and take the place.  My only concern is the damage to the global economy done by Russia, this nonsense needs to come to a swift conclusion 

I predicted the war would last about 5 years, nothing has changed to change my perspective, it is very easy to start a war but they go on for much longer than planners expect

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, shlomo said:

@jonb2 (the rest of the article)

Third, the revelation that Russia’s defense industry is something of a Potemkin village also generates other strategic and diplomatic wins for the US. Countries eager to secure defense capability to meet their own threats – think of Turkey, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — might have opted for cheaper, “value” Russian defense offerings. However, with the quality/capability of this equipment now being questioned because of poor battlefield performance, they will likely be vying to acquire a better US kit. But this will require improved diplomatic relations. This is currently evident in the improved US–Pakistan relationship, with Pakistan securing upgrade kits for its F-16s. 

Fourth, helping Ukraine beat Russia surely also sends a powerful signal to China that the US and its allies are strong and determined when challenged on issues of core importance. This may raise questions in the minds of Xi Jinping and the People’s Liberation Army generals about their ability to win a conflict against countries armed with US/Western military technology, for example in Taiwan. Surely Russia’s difficulty in winning the war in Ukraine will cause second thoughts in China about the wisdom and perhaps the viability of efforts to conquer Taiwan. 

Fifth, the war in Ukraine is encouraging and accelerating the energy transition in Europe, but also Europe’s diversification away from Russian energy. Europe is desperately trying to source alternative energy supplies, and US liquefied natural gas (LNG) is proving to be the obvious beneficiary.  

In conclusion, on so many levels, continued US support for Ukraine is a no-brainer from a bang for buck perspective. Ukraine is no Vietnam or Afghanistan for the US, but it is exactly that for Russia. A Russia continually mired in a war it cannot win is a huge strategic win for the US.  

Why would anyone object to that? 

Timothy Ash is a Senior Emerging Markets Sovereign Strategist at RBC BlueBay Asset Management. He is an Associate Fellow at Chatham House on their Russia and Eurasian program. 

The sort of claptrap you'd expect from an Associate Fellow at Chatham House. Germany is committing economic suicide by imposing trade and investment sanctions upon itself at the behest of the CIA and NATO rather than exploiting the almost unlimited resources sat on its doorstep for mutual gain. The other six members if the G7 are hopelessly indebted and probably beyond saving having adopted the junk economic model promoted by Chicago U forty years ago, including the US - the world's greatest debtor nation, entirely dependent on financial tributes from the rest of the world. Its imperial demands imposed by threat, bribery and the indiscriminate use of coercive force.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by zugzwang

[shlomo]

21 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The sort of claptrap you'd expect from an Associate Fellow at Chatham House. Germany is committing economic suicide by imposing trade and investment sanctions upon itself at the behest of the CIA and NATO rather than exploiting the almost unlimited resources sat on its doorstep for mutual gain. The other six members if the G7 are hopelessly indebted and probably beyond saving having adopted the junk economic model promoted by Chicago U forty years ago, including the US - the world's greatest debtor nation, entirely dependent on financial tributes from the rest of the world. Its imperial demands imposed by threat, bribery and the indiscriminate use of coercive force.

 

I would agree that most of  the associate members of Chatham House are stupid as dipshit, but Timothy Ash seems very inteligent, I would agree with his assesment on the rise of the US and I also agree with you the US has sabotoged the EU, the US elite is a lot more intelligent than other elites.

[Grayphil]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

The sort of claptrap you'd expect from an Associate Fellow at Chatham House. Germany is committing economic suicide by imposing trade and investment sanctions upon itself at the behest of the CIA and NATO rather than exploiting the almost unlimited resources sat on its doorstep for mutual gain. The other six members if the G7 are hopelessly indebted and probably beyond saving having adopted the junk economic model promoted by Chicago U forty years ago, including the US - the world's greatest debtor nation, entirely dependent on financial tributes from the rest of the world. Its imperial demands imposed by threat, bribery and the indiscriminate use of coercive force.

 

Should we all surrender to china now or later?

[Goat]

2 hours ago, shlomo said:

I predicted the war would last about 5 years, nothing has changed to change my perspective, it is very easy to start a war but they go on for much longer than planners expect

Falklands "war"; first Gulf war, six day war, Anglo-Zanzibar war.

I'd be surprised if it goes beyond next spring.