Russia

[Weston Super Saint]

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

[egg]

11 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Poland is going to give Ukraine all their Mig-29s, under the agreement that Uncle Sam will replace them with comparable aircraft, most likely F16s.

That was a nice idea while it lasted. Staggering that people still maintain that the West aren't running scared of Putin. The story of the plane swap and the migs going to Ukraine must have come from somewhere, and the overnight words from the US that there was never any discussion over the issue and that they don't know where Poland were coming from, somewhat throws Poland under the bus. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

Double cynicism Weston...but cant disagree with that. We'll never know the extent of the Russian losses, but it'll be a fraction if that. 

[Yozzman]

42 minutes ago, egg said:

That was a nice idea while it lasted. Staggering that people still maintain that the West aren't running scared of Putin. The story of the plane swap and the migs going to Ukraine must have come from somewhere, and the overnight words from the US that there was never any discussion over the issue and that they don't know where Poland were coming from, somewhat throws Poland under the bus. 

It came from Anthony Blinken, US secretary of state.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.politico.eu/article/us-secretary-of-state-confirms-plans-to-supply-ukraine-with-fighter-jets-via-poland/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjx1rjgzLj2AhVSUMAKHRAuA-oQ0PADKAB6BAggEAE&usg=AOvVaw0kWPJwadn1PqMImKepbQBu

[AlexLaw76]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

Exactly, we could easily be rendered pretty ineffective over a single weekend against them. That not to say we have crap kit, far from it. We just have embarrassingly little of it, and such few people to operate it.  Throw in Russias apparent tolerance for loss of life compared to ours.....

 

That is a reflection on what used to be a pretty powerful UK armed force, not of those currently serving. 

Edited 9 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Lighthouse]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Exactly, we could easily be rendered pretty ineffective over a single weekend against them. That not to say we have crap kit, far from it. We just have embarrassingly little of it, and such few people to operate it.  Throw in Russias apparent tolerance for loss of life compared to ours.....

 

That is a reflection on what used to be a pretty powerful UK armed force, not of those currently serving. 

Just out of interest, have you ever spoken to any of the families of servicemen killed in Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan? Perhaps you should give them your in depth assessment of how pathetic and gutless they all are.

[Millbrook Saint]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Just out of interest, have you ever spoken to any of the families of servicemen killed in Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan? Perhaps you should give them your in depth assessment of how pathetic and gutless they all are.

Come off it, he clearly said in his post that it wasn't a reflection of those serving, but more a reflection of how we've allowed our armed services to dwindle down over the years and I tend to agree, we've got complacent, thinking that we've cured war and peace will be around forever, we forget that peace is only achieved through keeping people like putin in check, the moment you give them an inch and they smell complacency they will move, we need to increase our armed forces to how it once was

[kyle04]

Regarding the Russian casualties, the numbers will always be disputed and probably never accurately known. The evidence available is mainly subjective. The oryxspioenkop.com documentation of equipment losses seems quite reliable, given there's photographic back up of every entry, and the actual numbers are more than likely a lot higher. How this translates into human deaths is impossible to calculate. Firstly the Russian army is spread over a vast area, their divisions individually may not be being decimated so to the casualties may seem not too bad to the soldier on the ground, but collectively it's a different story. The Russian public of course will be kept in the dark or lied to and may only learn the full extent of their losses years later, if at all. The Russians aren't "stomaching" large losses of they don't know about them.

The point of the UK army's relative ineffectiveness against the Russians is irrelevent really, as it wouldn't just be us potentially fighting them, but I agree that our military has been cut back to the point where it's become little more than a supporting role to the US. Do we now massively increase our defense budget?

[Tamesaint]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

A little knowledge of history would help your understanding.... but of course you dislike knowledge of anything that is not "practical" in your eyes. 

[badgerx16]

39 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Come off it, he clearly said in his post that it wasn't a reflection of those serving, but more a reflection of how we've allowed our armed services to dwindle down over the years and I tend to agree, we've got complacent, thinking that we've cured war and peace will be around forever, we forget that peace is only achieved through keeping people like putin in check, the moment you give them an inch and they smell complacency they will move, we need to increase our armed forces to how it once was

To what point in history ? To the early 1980s when we struggled to put a task force together to retake the Falklands, and if the Argies had waited 12 months for the Defence Review to kick in would have found it even harder ? To the 1950s when National Service kept the numbers high as we tried to keep peace in East Africa and Malaysia ? Or to the numbers in uniform in May 1945 ?

Remember, this is the Government that has considered reducing our MBT force down to zero, and reduced our F-35 numbers to a quarter of the original order.

Edited 9 March, 2022 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

Oh for the days when the RAF claimed to have shot down 200 German aircraft in one afternoon. Whilst the Ukrainian claims are no doubt exaggerated, counting the KIA, wounded, and POWs, there will be far more than the Russians admit to - if they even have an idea as to what their true casualty numbers are.

[Lighthouse]

51 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Come off it, he clearly said in his post that it wasn't a reflection of those serving, but more a reflection of how we've allowed our armed services to dwindle down over the years and I tend to agree, we've got complacent, thinking that we've cured war and peace will be around forever, we forget that peace is only achieved through keeping people like putin in check, the moment you give them an inch and they smell complacency they will move, we need to increase our armed forces to how it once was

Talking about our lack of tolerance for loss of life and how we’d be defeated as a combat unit over a weekend, against the same opposition which hasn’t managed to overcome Ukraine in two weeks, is a reflection of the whole defence organisation> It’s not relevant anyway, this isn’t UK vs. Russia, there’s a reason we’re in NATO.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Just out of interest, have you ever spoken to any of the families of servicemen killed in Iraq 1, 2 and Afghanistan? Perhaps you should give them your in depth assessment of how pathetic and gutless they all are.

TBF to Batman (not something I am normally) I don’t think he was implying that in his post

[whelk]

5 hours ago, egg said:

That was a nice idea while it lasted. Staggering that people still maintain that the West aren't running scared of Putin. The story of the plane swap and the migs going to Ukraine must have come from somewhere, and the overnight words from the US that there was never any discussion over the issue and that they don't know where Poland were coming from, somewhat throws Poland under the bus. 

Staggering how many pant pissers have been influenced. We are in the age of so many keen to be the smart contrarian and questioning the common opinion. Ukrainians have posed huge problems to Russia’s advances. Only delaying the inevitable but taking cities is one thing and then keeping them another.

[RedArmy]

Dulldays must be picking out his new username again already. 

[farawaysaint]

2 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Dulldays must be picking out his new username again already. 

I mean… your name is RedArmy 🤣

[badgerx16]

There is a video on reddit/combatfootage of a Russian tank flying a Soviet hammer and sickle flag from one of it's antennae.

[Klaus Schwab]

Anyone on here an Oliver Stone fan?

https://rumble.com/vwlzg0-ukraine-on-fire-oliver-stone-2016.html

[Jimmy_D]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Exactly, we could easily be rendered pretty ineffective over a single weekend against them. That not to say we have crap kit, far from it. We just have embarrassingly little of it, and such few people to operate it.  Throw in Russias apparent tolerance for loss of life compared to ours.....

 

That is a reflection on what used to be a pretty powerful UK armed force, not of those currently serving. 

Our armed forces are now extremely highly trained and equipped, able to carry out operations using relatively small forces, and regularly train in cross-forces operations with other countries' forces.

Losses are low because we don't commit huge forces to operations, and if we were to suffer more losses than expected, we'd still have the ability to operate extremely effectively with a small force.

The idea that one cross-forces NATO operation could easily(!) render the UK armed forces ineffective in one weekend is as nonsensical now as it was when it first popped in your head.

[rallyboy]

Anyway, after PMQs I now know that we lead the world in supplying Ukraine with arms, we lead the world in sanctioning oligarchs, and we lead the world in rehoming refugees.

Three glorious victories for Global Britain!

All the other lesser countries that don't care as much as we do are hanging their heads in shame at seeing the incredibly slick, trouble-free, ramped-up, unprecedented, turbocharged, caring, paperwork-free evacuation operation that the plucky UK has organised - it's the envy of the world!

The one that we lead.

All possible because we're no longer tied up by foreign red tape - so today we're demonstrating exactly how efficient and caring we really are.

 

 

 

 

[badgerx16]

Vlad tells Russia that there are no conscripts involved in the Special Military Operation. Now the Russian Defence Ministry have "discovered" that there might have been some there after all, ( probably after the Ukrainians repeatedly posted videos of them after capture ). How come they didn't know ?

 

[egg]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Staggering how many pant pissers have been influenced. We are in the age of so many keen to be the smart contrarian and questioning the common opinion. Ukrainians have posed huge problems to Russia’s advances. Only delaying the inevitable but taking cities is one thing and then keeping them another.

"Influenced", how? Has it escaped you that Ukraine is being smashed to bits? Preferring to see stronger action than sanctions that haven't stopped Putin in his tracks does not make me a "pant pisser" - that's a stupid comment. 

Sure, the sanctions will be impacting on Russia and its people, I'm more concerned about seeing the stopping of the destruction or Ukraine than a bit of damage caused to Russian forces and its economy. 

What's the common opinion as you see it? Hope that the closing of McDonald's and Starbucks causes such pressure that Putin gives up? 

[farawaysaint]

19 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Vlad tells Russia that there are no conscripts involved in the Special Military Operation. Now the Russian Defence Ministry have "discovered" that there might have been some there after all, ( probably after the Ukrainians repeatedly posted videos of them after capture ). How come they didn't know ?

 

It is illegal in terms of Russian law for conscripts to be put into war zones. 
 

There were several reports in fact of conscripts being forced into signing enlistment documents the day before they went in to circumvent this. I think the sheer number of them has now made it impossible for the Russian MOD to deny.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, farawaysaint said:

It is illegal in terms of Russian law for conscripts to be put into war zones. 
 

There were several reports in fact of conscripts being forced into signing enlistment documents the day before they went in to circumvent this. I think the sheer number of them has now made it impossible for the Russian MOD to deny.

This is an interesting read with numerous references to conscripts signing 3 year military contracts just days before being sent to 'guard' the Belarus - Ukraine border...

It also makes reference to 11,000 dead Russians (at the end of the article).

9 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

For those too thick to have noticed (Tamesaint gets a nod as always), the part of my previous post highligted above was sarcasm.  I don't for one minute think our armed forces would be wiped out in a weekend because we lose a tank and a few squaddies.  I am more than happy to acknowledge that our armed forces have been diminished (rightly so in times when they aren't needed), but we make up for numbers with technological gains.  Let's also not forget that service men/women can be called back to active service if needed, so numbers really won't be an issue.

Edited 9 March, 2022 by Weston Super Saint

[whelk]

35 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

This is an interesting read with numerous references to conscripts signing 3 year military contracts just days before being sent to 'guard' the Belarus - Ukraine border...

It also makes reference to 11,000 dead Russians (at the end of the article).

For those too thick to have noticed (Tamesaint gets a nod as always), the part of my previous post highligted above was sarcasm.  I don't for one minute think our armed forces would be wiped out in a weekend because we lose a tank and a few squaddies.  I am more than happy to acknowledge that our armed forces have been diminished (rightly so in times when they aren't needed), but we make up for numbers with technological gains.  Let's also not forget that service men/women can be called back to active service if needed, so numbers really won't be an issue.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2022/02/watch-boris-johnson-claimed-the-days-of-big-tank-battles-in-europe-were-over
 

Remember posting this somewhere a few months back. Just in case people are starting to think what a wonderful leader BJ is 

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, farawaysaint said:

It is illegal in terms of Russian law for conscripts to be put into war zones. 
 

There were several reports in fact of conscripts being forced into signing enlistment documents the day before they went in to circumvent this. I think the sheer number of them has now made it impossible for the Russian MOD to deny.

 

45 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

This is an interesting read with numerous references to conscripts signing 3 year military contracts just days before being sent to 'guard' the Belarus - Ukraine border...

 

If I was MLG I would point out that I posted about the conscripts on page 18 😉

[whelk]

2 hours ago, egg said:

"Influenced", how? Has it escaped you that Ukraine is being smashed to bits? Preferring to see stronger action than sanctions that haven't stopped Putin in his tracks does not make me a "pant pisser" - that's a stupid comment. 

Sure, the sanctions will be impacting on Russia and its people, I'm more concerned about seeing the stopping of the destruction or Ukraine than a bit of damage caused to Russian forces and its economy. 

What's the common opinion as you see it? Hope that the closing of McDonald's and Starbucks causes such pressure that Putin gives up? 

Bit naive to equate to Starbucks pulling out as opposed to freezing their foreign reserve war chest.  We see it differently clearly and I see Russia coming unstuck

 

[Tamesaint]

10 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, you have to hand it to these Russians.  Current claims from Ukraine are that around 11,000 Russian troops have been killed (about 10% of the invading force?) in just over a week.

If that was us, the loss of a tank and a couple of squadies over a weekend would have caused the entire army to surrender and retreat with its tail between its legs, accepting the inevitable, but the Russians appear to be made of sterner stuff....

Don't worry lads. Weston isn't really confused as we may have indicated when reading this post. He explains later that he was just being sarcastic. 

Such a razor sharp wit!!

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, egg said:

"Influenced", how? Has it escaped you that Ukraine is being smashed to bits? Preferring to see stronger action than sanctions that haven't stopped Putin in his tracks does not make me a "pant pisser" - that's a stupid comment. 

Sure, the sanctions will be impacting on Russia and its people, I'm more concerned about seeing the stopping of the destruction or Ukraine than a bit of damage caused to Russian forces and its economy. 

What's the common opinion as you see it? Hope that the closing of McDonald's and Starbucks causes such pressure that Putin gives up? 

We’re basically doing all we can without escalating the situation into full on Nato vs Russia conflict. Our strategy is clearly to make this way as tough, expensive and demoralising as possible for Russia, whilst at the same time crippling their economy. This isn’t as trivial as Oleg and Sergei not having a latte on their coffee break, every multinational company that pulls out equals thousands of jobs lost and another chunk out of Russia’s economic output.

 

I don’t know what else you think we should be doing?

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

If I was MLG I would point out that I posted about the conscripts on page 18 😉

True.  Verifiable (from the BBC), interviews with the mothers of 'missing' soldiers backs it up as well.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Don't worry lads. Weston isn't really confused as we may have indicated when reading this post. He explains later that he was just being sarcastic. 

Such a razor sharp wit!!

If I was MLG I would point out that I posted a number of pages back that I didn't think the British Army (and its Generals) would simply turn tail and run away from a fight.  Still, nice to know you're keeping up (For Tamesaint's benefit [/sarcasm])

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We’re basically doing all we can without escalating the situation into full on Nato vs Russia conflict. Our strategy is clearly to make this way as tough, expensive and demoralising as possible for Russia, whilst at the same time crippling their economy. This isn’t as trivial as Oleg and Sergei not having a latte on their coffee break, every multinational company that pulls out equals thousands of jobs lost and another chunk out of Russia’s economic output.

 

I don’t know what else you think we should be doing?

And the Russian national debt gets downgraded almost on a daily basis.  Pretty soon they will be defaulting on their debts and will be looking to sell their oil and gas to whoever will buy it for next to nothing.

[Lighthouse]

[Weston Super Saint]

I guessed it worked for Blair, so the mad fucker might get away with!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60683248

Quote

In a tweet, the Russian Embassy referred to claims made by their foreign ministry spokeswoman that "recently found documents" showed components of biological weapons were made in Ukrainian laboratories - with funding from the US Department of Defense.

 

[farawaysaint]

15 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We’re basically doing all we can without escalating the situation into full on Nato vs Russia conflict. Our strategy is clearly to make this way as tough, expensive and demoralising as possible for Russia, whilst at the same time crippling their economy. This isn’t as trivial as Oleg and Sergei not having a latte on their coffee break, every multinational company that pulls out equals thousands of jobs lost and another chunk out of Russia’s economic output.

 

I don’t know what else you think we should be doing?

Russia in the process of introducing legislation to nationalise all these businesses…

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-companies-wrap-idUSKBN2L6123

Edited 9 March, 2022 by farawaysaint

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, farawaysaint said:

Russia in the process of introducing legislation to nationalise all these businesses…

Which is odd as a number of them have stated they will continue to pay wages for the staff (it's not their fault after all).

[egg]

39 minutes ago, whelk said:

Bit naive to equate to Starbucks pulling out as opposed to freezing their foreign reserve war chest.  We see it differently clearly and I see Russia coming unstuck

 

Russia will come unstuck at some point, but that doesn't help Ukraine or its people. 

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Russia will come unstuck at some point, but that doesn't help Ukraine or its people. 

It does when Russia can’t afford to replace its losses on the battlefield. When logistics continue to flounder and vehicles and weapons fall victim to disrepair. When the morale of Russian citizens plummets and their conscript army has no desire to fight.

[egg]

35 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We’re basically doing all we can without escalating the situation into full on Nato vs Russia conflict. Our strategy is clearly to make this way as tough, expensive and demoralising as possible for Russia, whilst at the same time crippling their economy. This isn’t as trivial as Oleg and Sergei not having a latte on their coffee break, every multinational company that pulls out equals thousands of jobs lost and another chunk out of Russia’s economic output.

 

I don’t know what else you think we should be doing?

We could do more without going toe to toe. We're supplying anti aircraft weapons and other arms, but not planes. What's the distinction? 

Does he have license in your eyes to do what he likes with Ukraine and its people without military opposition? If not, at what point do we intervene, whether by no fly zone or otherwise? Vacuum bombs haven't been enough. Ditto carpet bombs. Ditto attacks on hospitals. A nuke perhaps? 

The West have intervened for a hell of a lot less on conflict not on its doorstep, and where article 5 has not arisen. 

[Plastic]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Does he have license in your eyes to do what he likes with Ukraine and its people without military opposition? If not, at what point do we intervene, whether by no fly zone or otherwise? Vacuum bombs haven't been enough. Ditto carpet bombs. Ditto attacks on hospitals. A nuke perhaps? 

The West have intervened for a hell of a lot less on conflict not on its doorstep, and where article 5 has not arisen. 

We haven’t intervened in the uyghur genocide, we haven’t intervened in chechnya, we haven’t intervened in Yemen. Why would you think we would intervene directly in this new non-nato conflict? NATO has stated it’s red lines, which are attacks on member states. Putin could blow Ukraine to bits and we would still be unlikely to get directly involved.

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

We're supplying anti aircraft weapons and other arms, but not planes. What's the distinction?

For a start we don’t have anything the Ukrainians can fly, secondly I believe they would be defined as offensive weapons as opposed to defensive. I don’t quite get why that’s an issue but that’s the distinction.

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Does he have license in your eyes to do what he likes with Ukraine and its people without military opposition? If not, at what point do we intervene, whether by no fly zone or otherwise? Vacuum bombs haven't been enough. Ditto carpet bombs. Ditto attacks on hospitals. A nuke perhaps? 

Russia doesn’t have license to do anything they’ve done in Ukraine over the last 8 years, or in Syria or Chechnya. Sadly it’s the world we live in. I don’t know if and when we intervene, I honestly have no idea at what point that crossover happens. It’s a big escalation and opens up thousands of cans of worms. They could launch missiles at NATO countries, shoot down a couple more commercial airliners or anything they choose. As horrible as it is, Russians can go a lot worse than killing 50 people in a maternity hospital.

 

2 minutes ago, egg said:

The West have intervened for a hell of a lot less on conflict not on its doorstep, and where article 5 has not arisen

We haven’t been to war with a nuclear power though, that’s the distinction here. From a purely political POV Ukraine just isn’t important enough to warrant that.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Plastic said:

We haven’t intervened in the uyghur genocide, we haven’t intervened in chechnya, we haven’t intervened in Yemen. Why would you think we would intervene directly in this new non-nato conflict? NATO has stated it’s red lines, which are attacks on member states. Putin could blow Ukraine to bits and we would still be unlikely to get directly involved.

Yemen - the Saudi's are leading that with UK and US weapons, to include aircraft. Why not supply Ukraine with Aircraft alongside the other weapons we've supplied to give them better defense?

[farawaysaint]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Yemen - the Saudi's are leading that with UK and US weapons, to include aircraft. Why not supply Ukraine with Aircraft alongside the other weapons we've supplied to give them better defense?

As lighthouse alluded to fighter jets are considered offensive rather than defensive weapons. The distinction to me seems a bit arbitrary but it seems to be a red line from the perspective of the Russians.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

For a start we don’t have anything the Ukrainians can fly, secondly I believe they would be defined as offensive weapons as opposed to defensive. I don’t quite get why that’s an issue but that’s the distinction.

Russia doesn’t have license to do anything they’ve done in Ukraine over the last 8 years, or in Syria or Chechnya. Sadly it’s the world we live in. I don’t know if and when we intervene, I honestly have no idea at what point that crossover happens. It’s a big escalation and opens up thousands of cans of worms. They could launch missiles at NATO countries, shoot down a couple more commercial airliners or anything they choose. As horrible as it is, Russians can go a lot worse than killing 50 people in a maternity hospital.

 

We haven’t been to war with a nuclear power though, that’s the distinction here. From a purely political POV Ukraine just isn’t important enough to warrant that.

The last point goes to my initial point today, namely that the West are running scared of Putin. We haven't been to war with a nuclear power before, and we don't want to. Putin knows that and my concern is that our unwillingness to engage militarily in Ukraine because of the nuclear threat may be interpreted by Putin that we won't engage if an article 5 issue arises in a Nato country. I know we should, but the more he is allowed to get away with, the more emboldened he becomes imo. 

The line point is a tough one, and wholly subjective. Understandably people have a different view on this and quite right too, it's serious stuff.  The problem here, is that the line seems to be a long way away than it should be owing to the nuclear threat. There has to come a point though. 

On the plane thing, Ukraine can fly the migs that were on offer from Poland. Seems odd that we supply weapons to hurt soldiers but not weaponised planes to hurt soldiers and/or destroy the weapons that will be used against Ukraine and its people. There's no distinction there and again it reeks of running scared. 

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

Yemen - the Saudi's are leading that with UK and US weapons, to include aircraft. Why not supply Ukraine with Aircraft alongside the other weapons we've supplied to give them better defense?

Because if we did that and lost 2 of them 90% of our air force would be wiped out.

(For Tamesaint's benefit [/sarcasm] )

[egg]

9 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

As lighthouse alluded to fighter jets are considered offensive rather than defensive weapons. The distinction to me seems a bit arbitrary but it seems to be a red line from the perspective of the Russians.

Indeed, their terms. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Indeed, their terms. 

Not just their terms, anyone's terms, this is not exclusive to Russia and NATO has intervened against any other agressor.  NATO is not the world's police force and is a defensive pact ONLY for its own members.  If you ain't part of the club, you don't get protection, so if one of the bigger boys wants to nick your sweets, they can (unless you defend yourself).

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, egg said:

Yemen - the Saudi's are leading that with UK and US weapons, to include aircraft. Why not supply Ukraine with Aircraft alongside the other weapons we've supplied to give them better defense?

So we take Ukrainian airforce pilots away from the war, and ship them to the US to do conversion training on F-16s/F-18s ? They have been brought up on Russian aircraft, mostly models that are at least 15 years old, so in order to supply them we need to probably find a way that is acceptable to Poland for them to ship in their Mig-29s - offensive weapons being sent directly to a wartime enemy of their most powerful and threatening neighbour.

[Plastic]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

On the plane thing, Ukraine can fly the migs that were on offer from Poland. Seems odd that we supply weapons to hurt soldiers but not weaponised planes to hurt soldiers and/or destroy the weapons that will be used against Ukraine and its people. There's no distinction there and again it reeks of running scared. 

I’d say watch this space. The US may have rejected the offer, but it’s conceivable that the Polish may circumvent the process and do this themselves, giving Putin grounds to retaliate. That would become an interesting predicament, and could escalate quickly into something very unpleasant. 

Edited 9 March, 2022 by Plastic

[egg]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not just their terms, anyone's terms, this is not exclusive to Russia and NATO has intervened against any other agressor.  NATO is not the world's police force and is a defensive pact ONLY for its own members.  If you ain't part of the club, you don't get protection, so if one of the bigger boys wants to nick your sweets, they can (unless you defend yourself).

You've missed the point I was replying to namely that determining that supplying Ukraine with plans is a red line set arbitrarily by Russia. Its no different than supplying any other machine or weapon to take out Russian machines or men.