• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

International relations thread

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,521
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Just wondered what the UK's response should be should Russia start to reclaim more territory & Russia start winning the war?
Pretty simple really, If Ukraine totally falls into Russia's hands then the UK and its Nato allies will beef up even more the Eastern side of their border, It still remains the same, Attack one Nato Country, You attack them all. As for the supply of weapons i think that will continue, Its ironic that Russia is moaning about the West arming Unraine and them getting arms from Iran and N Korea is fine 🤷‍♂️ This war has shown that the Russian army in NOT the Red Army of the old USSR, Many of their weapons are out of date and if they came up against the West/Nato weapons they would be in for a huge surprise, We are so far only arming Ukraine with a fraction of our own Arsenal. What this "Special Military Operation" has told the Russians is that this so called "3 Day War" to take control of Ukraine has cost them Billions and thousands of lives and is nearly a year old. Yes they have a Nuclear Arsenal but so does the West/Nato, When Putin threatens with them what he seems to forget to tell his people is that any Nuclear strike won't be one sided, He launches them and he gets it back big time.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,521
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Just wondered what the UK's response should be should Russia start to reclaim more territory & Russia start winning the war?
Is weaponizing Ukraine by the West prolonging the war?
Chomsky: Advanced US Weaponry in Ukraine Is Sustaining Battlefield Stalemate - Truthout
Who invaded who and who is prolonging the war in Syria by weaponising Syria?
 

Radio Free Skaro

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
1,301
Location
Chaddington
Who invaded who and who is prolonging the war in Syria by weaponising Syria?
I don't think it's that simple. General Milley, former chair of the joint chiefs, is probably right in concluding that neither side can win a decisive military victory and that the cost of continuing warfare is enormous for both sides, with many repercussions beyond.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,521
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
I don't think it's that simple. General Milley, former chair of the joint chiefs, is probably right in concluding that neither side can win a decisive military victory and that the cost of continuing warfare is enormous for both sides, with many repercussions beyond.
It is that simple, In 2014 Russia decided to annex Crimea and use the so called Donesk People's Republic as their own army to wrestle control from Kiev, Then nearly one year ago Russia unilaterally invaded an indepenant soveriegn nation Ukraine, Thought it would take them 3 days to win and the rest of Europe/The West would just roll over, Even before one weapon was sent from the West Russia totally miscalculated Ukraine's resolve and soon became obvious that they won't be taking over the country anytime soon, Now we have a war of attrician, Mainly due to the winter but no side has gained too much in land but the cost in human life on both sides is immense, Come spring a new offensive will start by either side.

Again who is causing this prolonged war, Not Ukraine, Nor the West who are sending weapons to a sovereign nation which was invaded, Against international law to defend themselves, Russia can put any spin on it they want, If they didn't invade this would have never happened. Simples.
 

iscalad

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
26,167
Location
Far away across the field
I see we are sending a dozen Challenger 2 battle tanks to Ukraine
 

Radio Free Skaro

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
1,301
Location
Chaddington
It is that simple, In 2014 Russia decided to annex Crimea and use the so called Donesk People's Republic as their own army to wrestle control from Kiev, Then nearly one year ago Russia unilaterally invaded an indepenant soveriegn nation Ukraine, Thought it would take them 3 days to win and the rest of Europe/The West would just roll over, Even before one weapon was sent from the West Russia totally miscalculated Ukraine's resolve and soon became obvious that they won't be taking over the country anytime soon, Now we have a war of attrician, Mainly due to the winter but no side has gained too much in land but the cost in human life on both sides is immense, Come spring a new offensive will start by either side.

Again who is causing this prolonged war, Not Ukraine, Nor the West who are sending weapons to a sovereign nation which was invaded, Against international law to defend themselves, Russia can put any spin on it they want, If they didn't invade this would have never happened. Simples.
I get what you're saying but Russia clearly isn't backing down.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,521
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
I get what you're saying but Russia clearly isn't backing down.
No they're not, Talk earlier on in this war about Putin's ill health, The Oligarghs telling him to stop, Their economy falling apart etc have all been proved wrong, If we blink it will only serve Putin and he only responds to strength, Not weakness. What do you suggest, Ukraine to cecede their land because of what Putin's done? No if there is a chance that Ukraine can get back their rightful land we should help them all we can, Tanks being delivered is a positive step imo.

If we just shrug our shoulders and let Putin take whatever he wants it will make Europe even more dangerous. A lot of this happened because of what happened in Afghanistan imo, The way the US/Nato fled gave Putin the idea that Nato was weak and divided, In fact a lot of us did at the time and he miscalulated by invading Ukraine thinking this. I'm not sure how old you are but Nato was the only thing that kept the USSR/Warsaw Pact out of Western Europe and after 45 yrs the people of Eastern Europe wanted to be free to live their lives as their want when the wall came down and the USSR was no more and did not want to be dictated to by Moscow anymore.
 

Phil Sayers

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
10,691
Location
Kernow - battering a drunken Octopus
In addition to the 14 Challenger 2 tanks the government has also announced an intention to transfer circa 30 AS90 self-propelled artillery pieces.


The former are very useful to Ukraine politically in that the announcement should encourage other countries operating more suitable tank types (German Leopards and American Abrams) to make similar announcements themselves. However, the actual battlefield use could be questioned on the basis that, although they are good tanks and better than anything Ukraine currently has, it is a lot of effort to have dedicated training programmes, maintenance requirements and ammunition that is not used by the rest of NATO to keep only 14 tanks operational (although the announcement did say an 'initial' 14).

No such problems with the AS-90s though which are potent heavy artillery using NATO standard ammunition and pretty similar to Krab artillery pieces that Ukraine has already received from Poland:

 

Radio Free Skaro

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
1,301
Location
Chaddington
No they're not, Talk earlier on in this war about Putin's ill health, The Oligarghs telling him to stop, Their economy falling apart etc have all been proved wrong, If we blink it will only serve Putin and he only responds to strength, Not weakness. What do you suggest, Ukraine to cecede their land because of what Putin's done? No if there is a chance that Ukraine can get back their rightful land we should help them all we can, Tanks being delivered is a positive step imo.

If we just shrug our shoulders and let Putin take whatever he wants it will make Europe even more dangerous. A lot of this happened because of what happened in Afghanistan imo, The way the US/Nato fled gave Putin the idea that Nato was weak and divided, In fact a lot of us did at the time and he miscalulated by invading Ukraine thinking this. I'm not sure how old you are but Nato was the only thing that kept the USSR/Warsaw Pact out of Western Europe and after 45 yrs the people of Eastern Europe wanted to be free to live their lives as their want when the wall came down and the USSR was no more and did not want to be dictated to by Moscow anymore.
I agree but think that the analysis of being satisfied with the West arming Ukraine and then it is only a matter of time before Russia gives in is seriously flawed.
 

Phil Sayers

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
10,691
Location
Kernow - battering a drunken Octopus
I agree but think that the analysis of being satisfied with the West arming Ukraine and then it is only a matter of time before Russia gives in is seriously flawed.
In what respect is it flawed? I do agree that if Russia went for a full WW2 like total war effort they would likely end up winning (although at huge cost to their society) but I just don't see that as being a viable thing to do these days. Russia is too exposed to the global economy and when the population start being issued meagre food rations to survive on with no luxury goods available at all because all manufacturing capability is dedicated to the war effort they could well end up in a state of armed revolt.

Without doing something on the above scale the current dynamic is that Russia is losing equipment at a much quicker rate than it can replenish it (likewise trained men although they have no shortage of untrained men) while Ukraine is steadily expanding the quality of the equipment it operates and increasing quantity in some important areas above the levels it had prior to the war starting.
 
Top