Russia

[sadoldgit]

11 hours ago, kyle04 said:

If true, over to you Biden...

Why Biden? We signed up to protecting Ukraine when they gave up their nukes, perhaps we should do something about it with a few other invested European nations? This is on our doorstep. If NATO continue to ignore Putin’s aggression then perhaps we should look to operate outside of the NATO alliance? I’m sure we are all sick to death watching the nightly news reports of murders and rapes and Ukrainian people who were bank clerks a few weeks ago now fighting on the front line and running out of things to fight with. I get that politically we are shit scared of getting involved in WW3, but how can any civilised nations, especially those with the firepower we have in the west, sit back and allow this destruction of an independent nation in our own backyard?

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Why Biden? We signed up to protecting Ukraine when they gave up their nukes, perhaps we should do something about it with a few other invested European nations? This is on our doorstep. If NATO continue to ignore Putin’s aggression then perhaps we should look to operate outside of the NATO alliance? I’m sure we are all sick to death watching the nightly news reports of murders and rapes and Ukrainian people who were bank clerks a few weeks ago now fighting on the front line and running out of things to fight with. I get that politically we are shit scared of getting involved in WW3, but how can any civilised nations, especially those with the firepower we have in the west, sit back and allow this destruction of an independent nation in our own backyard?

Russia wanted to keep Ukraine as a buffer against NATO and the west. Doesn’t the same apply the other way?

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Why Biden? We signed up to protecting Ukraine when they gave up their nukes, perhaps we should do something about it with a few other invested European nations? This is on our doorstep. If NATO continue to ignore Putin’s aggression then perhaps we should look to operate outside of the NATO alliance? I’m sure we are all sick to death watching the nightly news reports of murders and rapes and Ukrainian people who were bank clerks a few weeks ago now fighting on the front line and running out of things to fight with. I get that politically we are shit scared of getting involved in WW3, but how can any civilised nations, especially those with the firepower we have in the west, sit back and allow this destruction of an independent nation in our own backyard?

You know full well the reasons why.

Take the USA out of the question, we (in Europe) cannot take on Russia, as we have such limited capability (numbers).  We sold our defence to the USA, in exchange for more free stuff (Germany being the biggest culprit).  The trade-off = USA get to dictate when we act (around the world), and literally run NATO.  So far, the US appear to have zero appetite to fight a war in Europe.

We could have maintained a significant UK armed service, maybe at the level of the pre-withdrawal from East of Suez in the 60s, but that is never ever a vote winner.  More welfare is (for example).

You are in cloud cuckoo-land if you think a UK/Fr combined/led effort could do anything meaningful against the Russian army.  As said way back in this thread, a bad weekend and it will over for us.  Anyway, we are giving away very capable kit to Ukraine, I wonder how long it will take for us to back-fill our own stock?

Edited 12 April, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[buctootim]

This is interesting. A bridge carrying the main railways line into Dobass from Russia has been blown - potentially slowing / halting flow of supplies / weapons into Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1513821648394334209/photo/1

[sadoldgit]

53 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You know full well the reasons why.

Take the USA out of the question, we (in Europe) cannot take on Russia, as we have such limited capability (numbers).  We sold our defence to the USA, in exchange for more free stuff (Germany being the biggest culprit).  The trade-off = USA get to dictate when we act (around the world), and literally run NATO.  So far, the US appear to have zero appetite to fight a war in Europe.

We could have maintained a significant UK armed service, maybe at the level of the pre-withdrawal from East of Suez in the 60s, but that is never ever a vote winner.  More welfare is (for example).

You are in cloud cuckoo-land if you think a UK/Fr combined/led effort could do anything meaningful against the Russian army.  As said way back in this thread, a bad weekend and it will over for us.  Anyway, we are giving away very capable kit to Ukraine, I wonder how long it will take for us to back-fill our own stock?

We are not talking about a full scale invasion of Russia here, but other practical help for the military. Assistance from the RAF would make a massive difference to their defence capabilities and remember this is defensive action, not offensive action. The SAS could cause havoc with the Russians trying to regroup. At the very least we, European nations, could provide a lot more in the way of hardware. We are told that they are running out of ammo. Why? What are we going to use ours on? refugees crossing the channel? If it is true that chemical weapons are being used, having said we would up the anti, it is time to do it don’t you think? Not that is should make any difference. It’s the butchery that is the issue here, not what methods they are using to kill people.

[kyle04]

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61077641

"Last month US President Joe Biden said Nato "would respond" if Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine."

I only put the post out there due to statements like this. Alex is right though I think, the practical options are limited. More sanctions? More small arms? The heavier stuff being sent to Ukraine has so far been either ageing Soviet systems (the S300 from Slovakia), or outdated European equipment (German Leopard 1 tanks, British Harpoon missiles) for example, not that Ukraine aren't grateful for anything they get. European artillery shells are the wrong calibre , the more modern European/US armour requires training and is expensive. If true I'm happy that railroad got blown, I was rather hoping for similar on the Belarus trains loaded with Russian armour heading east, a "bridge too far" maybe.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, kyle04 said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61077641

"Last month US President Joe Biden said Nato "would respond" if Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine."

I only put the post out there due to statements like this. Alex is right though I think, the practical options are limited. More sanctions? More small arms? The heavier stuff being sent to Ukraine has so far been either ageing Soviet systems (the S300 from Slovakia), or outdated European equipment (German Leopard 1 tanks, British Harpoon missiles) for example, not that Ukraine aren't grateful for anything they get. European artillery shells are the wrong calibre , the more modern European/US armour requires training and is expensive. If true I'm happy that railroad got blown, I was rather hoping for similar on the Belarus trains loaded with Russian armour heading east, a "bridge too far" maybe.

There have been a number of arrests for sabotage of Belarussian railway workers for doing exactly that earlier in the war (West and South)

.   https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/03/24/belarusian-special-forces-guarding-railways-following-sabotage/?gdpr=accept

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You know full well the reasons why.

Take the USA out of the question, we (in Europe) cannot take on Russia, as we have such limited capability (numbers).  We sold our defence to the USA, in exchange for more free stuff (Germany being the biggest culprit).  The trade-off = USA get to dictate when we act (around the world), and literally run NATO.  So far, the US appear to have zero appetite to fight a war in Europe.

We could have maintained a significant UK armed service, maybe at the level of the pre-withdrawal from East of Suez in the 60s, but that is never ever a vote winner.  More welfare is (for example).

You are in cloud cuckoo-land if you think a UK/Fr combined/led effort could do anything meaningful against the Russian army.  As said way back in this thread, a bad weekend and it will over for us.  Anyway, we are giving away very capable kit to Ukraine, I wonder how long it will take for us to back-fill our own stock?

You were wrong then and you’re wrong now.

[farawaysaint]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-resettling-siberia-putin-b2056054.html
 

More evidence of Putin “resettling” Ukrainians to fix Russia’s demographic crisis.

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

.......

We could have maintained a significant UK armed service, maybe at the level of the pre-withdrawal from East of Suez in the 60s, but that is never ever a vote winner.  .........

Just to be sure- In 1960 we had 8 aircraft carriers and over 150 destroyers/frigates; the army was more than 3 times the size it is now, and defence spending was over 7% of GDP. Is that the level you are thinking of ?

[badgerx16]

According to Putin's pet, Lukashenko, the allegations of atrocities are "a psychological operation carried out by the English".

[buctootim]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

You know full well the reasons why.

Take the USA out of the question, we (in Europe) cannot take on Russia, as we have such limited capability (numbers).  We sold our defence to the USA, in exchange for more free stuff (Germany being the biggest culprit).  The trade-off = USA get to dictate when we act (around the world), and literally run NATO.  So far, the US appear to have zero appetite to fight a war in Europe.

We could have maintained a significant UK armed service, maybe at the level of the pre-withdrawal from East of Suez in the 60s, but that is never ever a vote winner.  More welfare is (for example).

You are in cloud cuckoo-land if you think a UK/Fr combined/led effort could do anything meaningful against the Russian army.  As said way back in this thread, a bad weekend and it will over for us.  Anyway, we are giving away very capable kit to Ukraine, I wonder how long it will take for us to back-fill our own stock?

European countries vastly outgun Russia both in terms of quantity and quality.  

[farawaysaint]

24 minutes ago, buctootim said:

European countries vastly outgun Russia both in terms of quantity and quality.  

But not appetite for war. Can you imagine a country in Europe accepting losses along the line of Russia’s?

[buctootim]

5 minutes ago, farawaysaint said:

But not appetite for war. Can you imagine a country in Europe accepting losses along the line of Russia’s?

I think its more to do with NATO getting too big and unwieldy, same as happened with EU. Trying to get 27 or 30 countries on the same page and agreeing to a common form of robust action is impossible. Need to have smaller groupings of countries with common interests 

Edited 12 April, 2022 by buctootim

[AlexLaw76]

36 minutes ago, buctootim said:

European countries vastly outgun Russia both in terms of quantity and quality.  

on paper.  They can't even agree on a set of sanctions.  Imagine them lot forming a credible fighting force to take on an Army that simply will not play by the rules.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Imagine them lot forming a credible fighting force to take on an Army that simply will not play by the rules.

Or, as whelk said, a bunch of drunken rapists in s**t tanks. They’ve been found badly lacking against Ukraine, the militaries of NATO are far, far superior, with or without Uncle Sam involved.

[kyle04]

Sanctions don't come under the NATO umbrella though, they've been more of a knock on effect and each country's "relationship" with Russia is different (Germany have their gas conundrum, the UK have their corrupt olligarch riches). I think sanctions broadly speaking will hurt Russia, but the real turd in the waterpipe is of course China, who will openly support Russia judging by the recent UN vote. China have judged that the west can't do without them, as over the past few decades we've virtually handed over most of our manufacturing base to Beijing, which can't be undone quickly if at all. It's worth noting that the US currently owe China $1 trillion, around 5% of their GDP.

As far as a potential military conflict with NATO, Russia will get their arses handed to them, no question. Their "army" is a rabble and much of their equipment is unserviceable. If Putin isn't aware of this his generals certainly are. NATO are far more organized and have better weapons. The US had control of Iraq in a month, a vast sprawling alien environment , Russia didn't even come close to entering Kyiv, yet alone taking the city. NATO countries have been slowly increasing the military aid to Ukraine, and despite Putin's threats he's done fuck all about it. I remember his little rant on day 1 when he said something like "if anyone interferes, there will be serious consequences". Well the west have been interfering for 6 weeks and the bombs haven't rained down on Warsaw.

[Lighthouse]

32 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

The US had control of Iraq in a month, a vast sprawling alien environment , Russia didn't even come close to entering Kyiv, yet alone taking the city.

Not to mention the US and their allies had to fly all personnel, armament and logistics in from the other side of the world and set up operational bases in foreign countries. Russia can't adequately supply operations an hour's drive from their own border.

[Jonnyboy]

On 07/04/2022 at 20:53, Lighthouse said:

I'm afraid my burden of proof is somewhat higher than a stranger on a football forum, saying he saw, "a pentagon guy" say it on, "a random Twitter account." 

Meanwhile a representative from the WHO has said as recently as today that they're making serious preparations in case of a chemical attack.

https://www.reuters.com/world/who-says-making-contingency-plans-possible-chemical-assaults-ukraine-2022-04-07/

Try watching this one

 

[Jonnyboy]

2 hours ago, kyle04 said:

Sanctions don't come under the NATO umbrella though, they've been more of a knock on effect and each country's "relationship" with Russia is different (Germany have their gas conundrum, the UK have their corrupt olligarch riches). I think sanctions broadly speaking will hurt Russia, but the real turd in the waterpipe is of course China, who will openly support Russia judging by the recent UN vote. China have judged that the west can't do without them, as over the past few decades we've virtually handed over most of our manufacturing base to Beijing, which can't be undone quickly if at all. It's worth noting that the US currently owe China $1 trillion, around 5% of their GDP.

As far as a potential military conflict with NATO, Russia will get their arses handed to them, no question. Their "army" is a rabble and much of their equipment is unserviceable. If Putin isn't aware of this his generals certainly are. NATO are far more organized and have better weapons. The US had control of Iraq in a month, a vast sprawling alien environment , Russia didn't even come close to entering Kyiv, yet alone taking the city. NATO countries have been slowly increasing the military aid to Ukraine, and despite Putin's threats he's done fuck all about it. I remember his little rant on day 1 when he said something like "if anyone interferes, there will be serious consequences". Well the west have been interfering for 6 weeks and the bombs haven't rained down on Warsaw.

Lol, the US had control of Iraq in a month? That's why the country collapsed into chaos and it all spilled over into Syria and gave rise to ISIS. 

Go Team America! 

[CB Fry]

12 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Try watching this one

 

aaaand it took you a week and of course it's some crank youtuber. 

Thanks for not disappointing.

Don't be taken in by the mainstream meeeeja kids

Edited 12 April, 2022 by CB Fry

[kyle04]

5 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Lol, the US had control of Iraq in a month? That's why the country collapsed into chaos and it all spilled over into Syria and gave rise to ISIS. 

Go Team America! 

Correct, the point was though that the Iraqi army were defeated after that time. What followed was a chaotic free for all between religious factions with the US caught in the middle. That Iraq was a huge balls up is not disputed, so the world's a better place with people like Saddam and Bashar al-Assad ruling?

[badgerx16]

19 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Try watching this one

 

Saying that something "wasn't very clear" is not "knowing it was false".

Isn't the whole point of propaganda to promote your side of the dispute ? Why not 'make things up' to pre-empt things you don't want to happen - ie, China supplying Russia, ( which is a very credible scenario ).

The bottom line;

Has Russia invaded Ukraine ? Have Ukrainian civilians been targetted ? Have Russian troops been looting and levelling Ukrainian towns and villages ? Have Russia the capability to deploy chemical weapons, and do they have 'previous' regarding their use ?

Anything that can be done to oppose and ultimately defeat this is legitimate.

Edited 12 April, 2022 by badgerx16

[Jonnyboy]

11 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

aaaand it took you a week and of course it's some crank youtuber. 

Thanks for not disappointing.

Don't be taken in by the mainstream meeeeja kids

Knew it wouldn't take long for you to reply. Obviously you haven't actually watched it. I mean I could posted the US government spoke person's link but they didn't release it in some handy snippet for me. 

And why do you keep saying media in that weird way, are you unable to pronounce it properly? Silly Blairite.

[badgerx16]

i don't understand why people might be surprised that politicians might be economical with the truth.

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Knew it wouldn't take long for you to reply. Obviously you haven't actually watched it. I mean I could posted the US government spoke person's link but they didn't release it in some handy snippet for me. 

And why do you keep saying media in that weird way, are you unable to pronounce it properly? Silly Blairite.

So weird your left wing politics blind you to the true evil. Go communism eh Jonny

PS has your posting hiatus been as a result of you studying hard for your A Levels?

Edited 12 April, 2022 by whelk

[Lighthouse]

I couldn't make it through the first six words of the title of that video, let alone watch it.

[CB Fry]

13 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Knew it wouldn't take long for you to reply. Obviously you haven't actually watched it. I mean I could posted the US government spoke person's link but they didn't release it in some handy snippet for me. 

And why do you keep saying media in that weird way, are you unable to pronounce it properly? Silly Blairite.

You can rest assured I will never watch any of the shit the you post up.

[aintforever]

46 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

Try watching this one

 

What a load of bullshit. The US has been releasing intelligence to try and deter from the start and in some cases it was proven to be spot on. Do you not remember the endless warnings at the start of the year that they thought Putin was going to invade?

Edited 12 April, 2022 by aintforever

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

What a load of bullshit. The US has been releasing intelligence to try and deter from the start and in some cases it was proven to be spot on. Do you not remember the endless warnings at the start of the year that they thought Putin was going to invade?

Obviously false. Ukraine is clearly destroying it's own territory and the UK is fabricating the evidence of mass civilian casualties.

[kyle04]

Having watched the video, I can conclude that the narrator is a fucking idiot. Yes, WMD were either a complete lie or a result of fatally flawed intelligence, we know that, Holywood have made films about it etc. To equate that with questioning war crimes in Ukraine is just perverse. The "Russian war crimes" is not a US sourced theory, based on hearsay or "reliable sources". We've seen the destruction, the bodies, the mass graves, the naked corpse of a 3 year old dumped in a cellar among her murdered and raped family. As for US misinformation pre-empting possible events, this is a fucking war, not a video game, innocent people are dying in their droves on a daily basis. Anything that makes Russia doubt  a possible next move is acceptable IMO. I don't know what Jonnyboy (the emphasis on the "boy") is trying to achieve by posting this paranoid rubbish.

[skintsaint]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

and the UK is fabricating the evidence of mass civilian casualties.

Wrong, just the English according to Putin's Belarusian gimp.

[farawaysaint]

47 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Wrong, just the English according to Putin's Belarusian gimp.

It’s a conspiracy by the Scots to discredit the Union ahead of the next referendum.

[Millbrook Saint]

The end game is nigh, Putin has settled for the land bridge to Crimea..... for now, this he will achieve just with sheer numbers and the terror inflicted on civilians, 21000 estimated to be killed in Mariupol alone, rapes, executions and chemicals all used as weapons on civilians and all he west do is talk of charging him with war crimes, I bet he's scared.

At some point bullies need to be stood up to, the very least we should be doing is supplying the weapons Ukraine have asked for, I'd even think about deploying troops to stop this land being stolen, it's a criminal act of aggression, he messed up this time with his lack of preparedness, a mistake he won't make again, we should have taken advantage of that, yes soldiers will be killed but stopping him now may well cause less deaths long term than letting him get away with it.  Defending Ukraine is a noble cause unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Millbrook Saint said:

The end game is nigh, Putin has settled for the land bridge to Crimea..... for now, this he will achieve just with sheer numbers and the terror inflicted on civilians, 21000 estimated to be killed in Mariupol alone, rapes, executions and chemicals all used as weapons on civilians and all he west do is talk of charging him with war crimes, I bet he's scared.

At some point bullies need to be stood up to, the very least we should be doing is supplying the weapons Ukraine have asked for, I'd even think about deploying troops to stop this land being stolen, it's a criminal act of aggression, he messed up this time with his lack of preparedness, a mistake he won't make again, we should have taken advantage of that, yes soldiers will be killed but stopping him now may well cause less deaths long term than letting him get away with it.  Defending Ukraine is a noble cause unlike Iraq or Afghanistan.

Are you suggesting NATO soldiers should be sent?

[Millbrook Saint]

52 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Are you suggesting NATO soldiers should be sent?

I know the ramifications of sending them, possibility of ww3, china possibly getting involved, putin justifying what he's doing, but I don't see any other option, other than letting him get away with what he's doing, he's already starting to threaten other non NATO countries, the only reason he invaded Ukraine, not matter what he says was because he wanted their land, what happens when he wants some of Finlands' land, we just let him take it?

[buctootim]

27 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I know the ramifications of sending them, possibility of ww3, china possibly getting involved, putin justifying what he's doing, but I don't see any other option, other than letting him get away with what he's doing, he's already starting to threaten other non NATO countries, the only reason he invaded Ukraine, not matter what he says was because he wanted their land, what happens when he wants some of Finlands' land, we just let him take it?

Seems to me that the priority amongst most countries is to 1. Stop it spreading 2 Get it over as quickly as possible.

The need to ensure Putin doesnt get rewarded for the invasion doesn't seem to be a major consideration, let alone things like recovering Crimea and paying reparations. 

[aintforever]

30 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I know the ramifications of sending them, possibility of ww3, china possibly getting involved, putin justifying what he's doing, but I don't see any other option, other than letting him get away with what he's doing, he's already starting to threaten other non NATO countries, the only reason he invaded Ukraine, not matter what he says was because he wanted their land, what happens when he wants some of Finlands' land, we just let him take it?

Think NATO should be a bit bolder and send some serious hardware to help Ukraine but troops on the ground is too far. This is not some despot in a dessert we would be picking a fight with, it's someone who could genuinely hurt us.

[badgerx16]

The situation is that with the fall of Mariupol Putin will just about have all that he wanted out of the conflict. Whilst Ukraine is fighting a valiant defence, there is no way that they will be able to turn things around and take the initiative in Donbas or elsewhere in the South East, the numbers, and lack of air power, are stacked against them. Putin's new military chief is renowned for having a scorched earth approach to gaining territory, and will simply blitz everything left in his path as he aims to take complete control of Donetsk and Luhansk - he really doesn't care a jot about collateral damage or casualties. Once this has been achieved Russia will declare the Special Military Operation has come to a successful conclusion, and the May 9th victory parades will take place.

 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Think NATO should be a bit bolder and send some serious hardware to help Ukraine but troops on the ground is too far. This is not some despot in a dessert we would be picking a fight with, it's someone who could genuinely hurt us.

There isn't time to train the Ukrainian military on NATO heavy kit, and we will not risk our best technology falling into Russian hands.

Edited 13 April, 2022 by badgerx16

[Millbrook Saint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

The situation is that with the fall of Mariupol Putin will just about have all that he wanted out of the conflict. Whilst Ukraine is fighting a valiant defence, there is no way that they will be able to turn things around and take the initiative in Donbas or elsewhere in the South East, the numbers, and lack of air power, are stacked against them. Putin's new military chief is renowned for having a scorched earth approach to gaining territory, and will simply blitz everything left in his path as he aims to take complete control of Donetsk and Luhansk - he really doesn't care a jot about collateral damage or casualties. Once this has been achieved Russia will declare the Special Military Operation has come to a successful conclusion, and the May 9th victory parades will take place.

 

Agree and it's absolutely disgusting that it's happened, NATO should welcome the rest of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden into the fold if that's what they wish, place troops at the borders and send a message to Putin that he can go no further, Russia should then not be dealt with until the return of Crimea and the East of Ukraine, don't suppose it will happen with the guy sleeping at the wheel of the US though.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Agree and it's absolutely disgusting that it's happened, NATO should welcome the rest of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden into the fold if that's what they wish, place troops at the borders and send a message to Putin that he can go no further, Russia should then not be dealt with until the return of Crimea and the East of Ukraine, don't suppose it will happen with the guy sleeping at the wheel of the US though.

Your last comment is tripe. The US will not go toe to toe with Russia over Ukraine, and would probably have been less supportive than it has been if Donny was still in office. The US foreign policy focus is on China, as that is where their national interests lie. They will provide NATO with all it needs to defend itself, and to deter Russia from crossing the line into invading NATO territory. It is an unfortunate truth for Ukraine that whilst it desires to "move" West, it is dominated by a very jealous and aggressive former occupier who is unwilling to let go it's influence.

Edited 13 April, 2022 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

There isn't time to train the Ukrainian military on NATO heavy kit, and we will not risk our best technology falling into Russian hands.

True. We shouldn't shy away from giving them what they can use though, like those Polish Jets. If the West appears scared of getting involved it will just give Putin the green light to go further and make things worse.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

True. We shouldn't shy away from giving them what they can use though, like those Polish Jets. If the West appears scared of getting involved it will just give Putin the green light to go further and make things worse.

The Eastern NATO members have already sent Soviet model tanks and air defence systems, the MiGs require the US committing to backfill the Polish airforce- I think there is a willingness to do so but it will be a slow process to get things moving. Germany is intending to supply redundant Leopard 1 tanks, but it will take time for Ukrainian troops to train on them, and a willingness on Ukraine's side to release the manpower to do it.

[whelk]

I think we should take the initiative and send a nuke in on May 9th Moscow parades. Show him who the daddies are.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

I know the ramifications of sending them, possibility of ww3, china possibly getting involved, putin justifying what he's doing, but I don't see any other option, other than letting him get away with what he's doing, he's already starting to threaten other non NATO countries, the only reason he invaded Ukraine, not matter what he says was because he wanted their land, what happens when he wants some of Finlands' land, we just let him take it?

So you understand the ramifications of sending NATO troops, but what are the gains?  What does NATO get out of sending troops to defend Ukraine - or Finland if Putin heads that way (unless they do decide to join NATO and commit to the spending requirements).

[buctootim]

Zelenesky spelling out what he needs (In English) 

 

[kyle04]

Russia allegedly moving some armour up to the Finnish border, reportedly coastal defense systems at the moment, as Finland decides whether to join NATO. Slovakia to agree sale of their "zuzana" self propelled artillery to Ukraine, a serious bit of kit and just what they need. The US really does have to up it's support and agree to backfill every Soviet piece of equipment in eastern Europe so it can go to Ukraine and be used straight away.

[Jimmy_D]

Looks like when the Russian flagship was told to go to hell at the start of the war, it was an accurate prediction.

[Jimmy_D]

Reports now that the Moskova, Russia's flagship, has sunk after being struck by Ukrainian manufactured Neptune missiles.

Assuming that's accurate, Russia just lost its flagship in a war as the aggressor against a country that doesn't have an active navy.