Russia

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

You seem to know a lot about my opinions? I want the bastard squashed whereas you seem a mix of RT and Trump opinions fawning a bit too much.

 Piffle. I also would like him squashed and removed, my opinions are what I think the West will actually do rather than what I would like to see happen. The fact you think that I'm aping Trumps opinions speaks to your bias not mine. 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

So how do you see this playing out then? Because I don't see it ending at Ukraine and from what I've seen neither do so called experts on the matter. 

Obviously very early at the moment, but a long drawn out guerrilla war in Ukraine with Ukraine forces quietly bolstered by Special Forces for the foreseeable future.

If Putin still has support after that I think he’ll calculate the risk of invading NATO too high.

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I know its comforting to try to downplay the seriousness or the capability of an enemy but you underestimate your opponent at your peril- particularly one as dangerous and as well placed to inflict pain on the west as Putin. 

I don’t think anyone is underestimating him now. You seem to think it is fait accompli  in Ukraine and now a case of where next? The West isn’t as strong as it was but that will no doubt change now as there clear and present danger

[Lighthouse]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

So how do you see this playing out then? Because I don't see it ending at Ukraine and from what I've seen neither do so called experts on the matter. 

I know this wasn't aimed at me but personally I see:

• Eventual Russian occupation of Ukraine and a puppet government installed
• NATO troops and aircraft deployed to bases in the Baltic and Poland.
• Increased and protracted economic sanctions against Russia.
• Stalemate and a new cold war in Europe, which ends one of two ways; Putin dies (either naturally or is assassinated) or is overthrown by some sort of popular movement.

At that point Ukraine and Belarus overthrow their hugely unpopular puppet governments and the world moves on.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Obviously very early at the moment, but a long drawn out guerrilla war in Ukraine with Ukraine forces quietly bolstered by Special Forces for the foreseeable future.

If Putin still has support after that I think he’ll calculate the risk of invading NATO too high.

I don't see how Ukraine will be able to hold out for that long. I'm told that Russia have the largest heavy artillery and ground troops in the world and they've been planning this for a while (intelligence suggests they plan to attempt to take Kyov within days.) Much more likely imo is that Russia seize power and then look to quell unrest as soon as possible. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

I know this wasn't aimed at me but personally I see:

• Eventual Russian occupation of Ukraine and a puppet government installed
• NATO troops and aircraft deployed to bases in the Baltic and Poland.
• Increased and protracted economic sanctions against Russia.
• Stalemate and a new cold war in Europe, which ends one of two ways; Putin dies (either naturally or is assassinated) or is overthrown by some sort of popular movement.

At that point Ukraine and Belarus overthrow their hugely unpopular puppet governments and the world moves on.

Quite possibly. Certainly a more realistic scenario than some on here are suggesting. 

[RedArmy]

43 minutes ago, Mystic Force said:

I checked with the guy I share an office with, who is very much average, and he could point to Charleston, WV but did not know where Estonia was.

How many guesses did you give him? 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

I don’t think anyone is underestimating him now. You seem to think it is fait accompli  in Ukraine and now a case of where next? The West isn’t as strong as it was but that will no doubt change now as there clear and present danger

Well we will see won't we but in my opinion your desire to downplay Russia's capability and seriousness will be shown to be folly just as those who predicted that this was all a bluff have been shown up. 

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I know this wasn't aimed at me but personally I see:

• Eventual Russian occupation of Ukraine and a puppet government installed
• NATO troops and aircraft deployed to bases in the Baltic and Poland.
• Increased and protracted economic sanctions against Russia.
• Stalemate and a new cold war in Europe, which ends one of two ways; Putin dies (either naturally or is assassinated) or is overthrown by some sort of popular movement.

At that point Ukraine and Belarus overthrow their hugely unpopular puppet governments and the world moves on.

for that to work, significant sustained increase in Defence spending is required from most NATO nations (probably including us).

Appetite for that? Almost zero I suspect

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Much more likely imo is that Russia seize power and then look to quell unrest as soon as possible.

How often has that gone perfectly to plan? The French resistance, the Korean War, Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, USA in Afghanistan, USA in Iraq, the frequent flare ups with ISIS and their affiliates in Syria, Lybia, Iraq, the Israeli situation in Gaza and the West bank...

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I know this wasn't aimed at me but personally I see:

• Eventual Russian occupation of Ukraine and a puppet government installed
• NATO troops and aircraft deployed to bases in the Baltic and Poland.
• Increased and protracted economic sanctions against Russia.
• Stalemate and a new cold war in Europe, which ends one of two ways; Putin dies (either naturally or is assassinated) or is overthrown by some sort of popular movement.

At that point Ukraine and Belarus overthrow their hugely unpopular puppet governments and the world moves on.

If you want my opinion, I think that the west will slap sanctions on Russia and offer support to Ukraine but ultimately they will fall. I think Putin will then say that he's got what he wanted and he will stop there, people will move on and then in a few years time he will encroach again (by which time the West will have moved on and been distracted by other things.)

[Whitey Grandad]

24 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So you think he is going to take back the two regions and not go any further? That his intention isn't to overthrow the Ukrainian government and reclaim what he views as rightfully his? Did you not listen to his speech the other day? 

Don't tell me that you believed what he said???

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

How often has that gone perfectly to plan? The French resistance, the Korean War, Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, USA in Afghanistan, USA in Iraq, the frequent flare ups with ISIS and their affiliates in Syria, Lybia, Iraq, the Israeli situation in Gaza and the West bank...

Russia can take what they want and then just sit there as an occupying force waiting for the next opportunity to expand in a few years. A huge percentage of the country are Russian anyway so I expect from Putins point of view it's manageable. 

[Weston Super Saint]

How did Russia get on when it invaded Afghanistan?  It had nuclear weapons at the time, but for some reason decided not to unleash them on Baghdad when the Guerillas were handing the Soviet troops arses back to them.

[Lighthouse]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

for that to work, significant sustained increase in Defence spending is required from most NATO nations (probably including us).

Appetite for that? Almost zero I suspect

Again with the weird, one way rules which apparently only affect the West negatively. The USA spends nearly $800bn on defence annually. Russia spends $62bn, only a couple more than we do. The difference is Lithuania and Poland want us in their country, whereas Ukraine certainly don't want Russia.

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

How did Russia get on when it invaded Afghanistan?  It had nuclear weapons at the time, but for some reason decided not to unleash them on Baghdad when the Guerillas were handing the Soviet troops arses back to them.

Nope. Try again.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Don't tell me that you believed what he said???

I think you misunderstood my post. I think he believes what he said which is the problem. 

[Turkish]

58 minutes ago, trousers said:

Fingers crossed he doesn't read Saintsweb then... 

Surely he'd launch a cyber attack to close it down given this place has all the answers to everything.

[Wade Garrett]

Speaking to a Ukrainian we know, who is from the East.  She feels Russian, not Ukrainian.  She lives in the UK.  I suppose it shows there is some Russian support from within.

No idea where this is going.  It has certainly escalated from the cock-waving exercise it started as.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Nope. Try again.

Long day!  Subsititute Baghdad for Kabul and the sentiment still stands

[AlexLaw76]

 

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Again with the weird, one way rules which apparently only affect the West negatively. The USA spends nearly $800bn on defence annually. Russia spends $62bn, only a couple more than we do. The difference is Lithuania and Poland want us in their country, whereas Ukraine certainly don't want Russia.

But Russia make most of their own capability.  They do not go for the most technological sophisticated jets/ships/tanks

With their 'only a couple more then we do', they have something like 10x the amount of fighter jets than us.  Their land forces are extremely formidable, a force that can easily out-gun ours (that was a reason for the reduction in our artillery capability as it would be over in minutes against that lot), and their Navy is pretty big.

They have developed some insane weapons that would bring havoc to any enemy.

Their activities below the threshold of war are well practiced.  They are it all the time.

Edited 24 February, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, Wade Garrett said:

Speaking to a Ukrainian we know, who is from the East.  She feels Russian, not Ukrainian.  She lives in the UK.  I suppose it shows there is some Russian support from within.

No idea where this is going.  It has certainly escalated from the cock-waving exercise it started as.

Seems like the most reliable person to ask!

Feels so Russian she moved to the UK.

[Sheaf Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Russia can take what they want and then just sit there as an occupying force waiting for the next opportunity to expand in a few years. A huge percentage of the country are Russian anyway so I expect from Putins point of view it's manageable. 

I wouldn't call 17% huge by any stretch of the imagination.

The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians are opposed to Russia. An occupation wouldn't be "manageable" for Putin, it would be disastrous.

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, Wade Garrett said:

Speaking to a Ukrainian we know, who is from the East.  She feels Russian, not Ukrainian.  She lives in the UK.  I suppose it shows there is some Russian support from within.

No idea where this is going.  It has certainly escalated from the cock-waving exercise it started as.

Putin could probably have occupied the separatist regions in the same way he has Crimea.

A full scale invasion of the whole of Ukraine has rapidly put everyone opposing him on the same page.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

But Russia make most of their own units.  They do not go for the most technological sophisticated jets/ships/tanks

With their 'only a couple more then we do', they have something like 10x the amount of fighter jets than us.  Their land forces are extremely formidable, a force that can easily out-gun ours (that was a reason for the reduction in our artillery capability as it would be over in minutes against that lot), and their Navy is pretty big.

They have developed some insane weapons that would bring havoc to any enemy.

Yet apparently its swallowing Russian propaganda to make that argument! 

[Matthew Le God]

Putin's claim that he wants the denazification of the leadership of Ukraine is a strange one. Especially as President Zelensky is Jewish!

Edited 24 February, 2022 by Matthew Le God

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Wade Garrett said:

Speaking to a Ukrainian we know, who is from the East.  She feels Russian, not Ukrainian.  She lives in the UK.  I suppose it shows there is some Russian support from within.

No idea where this is going.  It has certainly escalated from the cock-waving exercise it started as.

Of the Ukrainians I know, two are Ukrainian speakers and one in Russian. I've spoken to two of them in recent days (the Russian and one Ukrainian) and both are sad, angry and scared. The Russian speaker especially was very upset at Putin, "trying to erase and rewrite our history." There's a big difference between being ethnically or linguistically Russian and actually supporting Putin.

 

We are all English speakers, hands up who wants Farage running the country.

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Speaking to a Ukrainian we know, who is from the East.  She feels Russian, not Ukrainian.  She lives in the UK.  I suppose it shows there is some Russian support from within.

No idea where this is going.  It has certainly escalated from the cock-waving exercise it started as.

It is like going to Belfast and asking someone from West and East. You will get differing opinions of how they see themselves

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yet apparently its swallowing Russian propaganda to make that argument! 

Tell you one thing, regardless of us spending being a bit more/bit less on Defence, we could not muster 150k ground forces at the speed they did (we now have half that).

We'd be lucky to muster 15k

Edited 24 February, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Of the Ukrainians I know, two are Ukrainian speakers and one in Russian. I've spoken to two of them in recent days (the Russian and one Ukrainian) and both are sad, angry and scared. The Russian speaker especially was very upset at Putin, "trying to erase and rewrite our history." There's a big difference between being ethnically or linguistically Russian and actually supporting Putin.

 

We are all English speakers, hands up who wants Farage running the country.

Alex Law, Hypo and Red Army?

[whelk]

Who do we want to win out of Poland V Russia in the World Cup play offs?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Who do we want to win out of Poland V Russia in the World Cup play offs?

Russia vs Poland - Thursday, March 24 (5.00pm kick-off) - live on Sky Sports

🤐

[Whitey Grandad]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Russia can take what they want and then just sit there as an occupying force waiting for the next opportunity to expand in a few years. A huge percentage of the country are Russian anyway so I expect from Putins point of view it's manageable. 

No they aren't. They are Ukrainian and they don't want life to go back to th e way it was forty years ago.

[Matthew Le God]

Have there been sanctions put on Belarus? Allowng an invasion to be staged and then take place through your territory shouldn't go unpunished.  Plus their president has today said they may contribute with forces later on.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No they aren't. They are Ukrainian and they don't want life to go back to th e way it was forty years ago.

A lot of them disagree. There's voices on both sides but the point is it's not going to be universal opposition to Russia in Ukraine. 

[Whitey Grandad]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Tell you one thing, regardless of us spending being a bit more/bit less on Defence, we could not muster 150k ground forces at the speed they did (we now have half that).

We'd be lucky to muster 15k

There's a big difference in quality. How many of this 150K are conscripts?

[hypochondriac]

So here we are then. If true then we can't even muster proper sanctions against Russia let alone start a ground war against them. The optimism from some that we are going to defend some of this Eastern European nations is misplaced in my opinion. 

[badgerx16]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Putin's claim that he wants the denazification of the leadership of Ukraine is a strange one.

But it is the narrative he has sold his people. Remember, what we are dealing with is Russian Folk History, dating back to the summer of 1941, when many Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators.

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So here we are then. If true then we can't even muster proper sanctions against Russia let alone start a ground war against them. The optimism from some that we are going to defend some of this Eastern European nations is misplaced in my opinion. 

Significant difference between defending a Nato member vs a non Nato member. Nato members have an obligation to defend Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, they don't for Ukraine. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Significant difference between defending a Nato member vs a non Nato member. Nato members have an obligation to defend Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, they don't for Ukraine. 

I am aware thanks. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I can't see the likes of America stationing troops in a country to die in a country they know nothing about. Expect we will find out shortly. 

Don't the US already have troops in Poland?

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Don't the US already have troops in Poland?

The 82nd Airborne arrived last week to reinforce those already there.

Also

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/02/22/us-attack-helos-f-35s-and-infantry-heading-to-baltics-amid-ukraine-invasion/

Obviously the bigger NATO members don't give a stuff about their smaller allies.

 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Don't the US already have troops in Poland?

Not really the same thing is it. The American public won't stand for body bags coming back to America from an Eastern European country and whoever is in charge won't have the backbone to allow it. Why would they? 

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Not really the same thing is it. The American public won't stand for body bags coming back to America from an Eastern European country and whoever is in charge won't have the backbone to allow it. Why would they? 

Because they don’t want to break a treaty that obliges them to?

I’m really not sure why you think it’d be such a small thing to do that.

[moonraker]

41 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

But Russia make most of their own capability.  They do not go for the most technological sophisticated jets/ships/tanks

With their 'only a couple more then we do', they have something like 10x the amount of fighter jets than us.  Their land forces are extremely formidable, a force that can easily out-gun ours (that was a reason for the reduction in our artillery capability as it would be over in minutes against that lot), and their Navy is pretty big.

They have developed some insane weapons that would bring havoc to any enemy.

Their activities below the threshold of war are well practiced.  They are it all the time.

Whilst it is undeniable that they have huge numbers, especially in men and artillery, and that their traditional approach is lots of cheap, dispensable units, they have significant weaknesses.  It is not complacent to note that their military is predominantly conscript, and whilst their elite forces may well be  a match for what the west have I am not so sure that their average pongo,  matelot or crab have the same level of efficiency and training as the majority of their NATO counterparts.  You talk of insane weapons, to give one example.  In 2015 Russia heralded the first major new tank design anywhere in the world for over 30 years, the T14.  They claimed they would manufacture 2400 by 2020, to date they have only managed a test batch of 100, none are operational, current best estimates are a minimum of 5 years before they are operational and then only in small numbers due to affordability issues..  Their biggest problem is an extended conflict they do not have the finances nor the production capability.  Putins Russia is not Stalins, he will not be able to mobilise industry in the way Stalin did.  As has been noted they failed in Afghanistan with even larger armed forces at their disposal.   I do not doubt that he will cause untold suffering and damage, and may well subdue Ukraine, but the cost will be high, economically and in lives, the key to this may well be the reaction of the Russian people once the cost starts to hit home.

Edited 24 February, 2022 by moonraker

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Because they don’t want to break a treaty that obliges them to?

I’m really not sure why you think it’d be such a small thing to do that.

I don't think it's a small thing. I still don't think it's a reasoning that the American public will accept. I don't even think it's one we will accept here, particularly if we get mass cyber attacks or similar that shut off communications. 

[Mystic Force]

I would expect somewhere like Georgia to be next or that separatist part of Romania.

And of course if NATO failed to respond to an attack on one of its members  it would end the organization, but it would not be the first time in history an alliance fractured because it was unwilling to fulfill its treaty obligations.

IF say Russia decided to launch a surprise and rapid attack on a Baltic state occupying it before we could respond, it would be a different prospect to take it back than to defend it. The logistics of sending forces to that location would be a significant hinderance.

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not really the same thing is it. The American public won't stand for body bags coming back to America from an Eastern European country and whoever is in charge won't have the backbone to allow it. Why would they? 

Running away from Russia and breaking up NATO is probably not a great look for the President though.

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think it's a small thing. I still don't think it's a reasoning that the American public will accept. I don't even think it's one we will accept here, particularly if we get mass cyber attacks or similar that shut off communications. 

The cost of (possibly) losing some approval ratings with the USA electorate would be far less than every USA ally questioning the worth of any treaty the USA is party to.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

The cost of (possibly) losing some approval ratings with the USA electorate would be far less than every USA ally questioning the worth of any treaty the USA is party to.

It's not just America though. Putin doesn't have the problem of having to sell to a domestic audience the loss of pote tially thousands of people over a country that most people don't care about. The west does have that problem and I can envisage significant opposition and calls for compromise to prevent war on that scale. Besides, it's most likely going to be an incremental thing anyway like I said earlier. Russia will just wait for things to die down and a bit and then keep going. 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by hypochondriac