Russian invasion of Ukraine

metalblue said:
Russia have said today that if Ukraine withdraw their ambition to join NATO (which Ukraine spoke about doing yesterday) it will go a long way to resolving their concerns. Looks like we might have the makings of a diplomatic solution.
Click to expand...

So it was the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK who said they may consider dropping desire to join NATO yesterday. Today he has rowed back on that, as have others in Ukraine - if ever there was a lesson for politicians that words matter, this is it. So as you were. Next 48 hours seem crucial as Ukraine and Russia meet to try and advert conflict.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Why are you insistent on equating US activity with NATO action?

The Bay of Pigs was about as far from NATO action as could be.
Click to expand...
I wasn't even going to bother.

It's the dumbest example i've seen yet. I don't think he understands what NATO actually does.
 
bluesteel said:
What the hell do you mean aside from Iraq? That's enough in itself.

Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)
United States invasion of Grenada (1983)
United States invasion of Panama (1990)
Afghanistan Invasion (2001)
Aforementioned Iraq Invasion (2003)
Syria was illegal too
Plus all the JSOC assassinations without trial

I never I was concerned, I understand why they don't want a land border with a NATO country though, seems like they're the ones doing the most invading since it was set up.
Click to expand...
They already had one; Poland.

The 31st Air Base is near Poznan. Kaliningrad is part of Russia.
 
bluesteel said:
What the hell do you mean aside from Iraq? That's enough in itself.

Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)
United States invasion of Grenada (1983)
United States invasion of Panama (1990)
Afghanistan Invasion (2001)
Aforementioned Iraq Invasion (2003)
Syria was illegal too
Plus all the JSOC assassinations without trial

I never I was concerned, I understand why they don't want a land border with a NATO country though, seems like they're the ones doing the most invading since it was set up.
Click to expand...

EasternBloc_BorderChange38-48.svg.png


Now why would we trust Russia?
 
mexico1970 said:
View attachment 36525


Now why would we trust Russia?
Click to expand...

Now why would they trust the UK? You're just being silly, they're complaining about NATO in 2021.
kBynIp9NIZzZtw4EerbN1pcw65ApLoJAtgVjQpywrS4.png
 
bluesteel said:
OK, let me put it like this, for the hard of understanding.

Let us imagine Russia have set up some equivalent of NATO, lets call it RTO, they have signed up with Denmark (Greenland), Belize, Cuba, and whatever the closest island is to Hawaii.

They have put a missile defence system in capable of shooting down any missile launched from US soil, and also have the same system in Russia, to protect from a submarine attack, America doesn't have this missile defence.

Mexico wants to join the RTO, America obvious aren't too keen on the idea..... what the fuck do you think happens next? I'm telling you right now a load of US tanks are ploughing into Mexico, and if you don't believe that you're deluded.
Click to expand...
This far-fetched hypothetical is, just that…far-fetched, because it jumps to Stage 4 of a 5 step process.

The geopolitics would have to have been so ham-fisted for anyone to allow it to get to that point, plus there is a very strategic difference between misfile defence batteries and offensive weaponry.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Why are you insistent on equating US activity with NATO action?

The Bay of Pigs was about as far from NATO action as could be.
Click to expand...
Bay of Pigs invasion, (April 17, 1961), abortive invasion of Cuba at the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), or Playa Girón (Girón Beach) to Cubans, on the southwestern coast by some 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Fidel Castro. The invasion was financed and directed by the U.S. government.

Swap Cuba for Ukraine, and the US for Russia.

Russia don't want a NATO member on their doorstep any more than the US wanted communist Cuba on theirs.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
This far-fetched hypothetical is, just that…far-fetched, because it jumps to Stage 4 of a 5 step process.

The geopolitics would have to have been so ham-fisted for anyone to allow it to get to that point, plus there is a very strategic difference between misfile defence batteries and offensive weaponry.
Click to expand...
Russia have highly mobile missile defence systems capable of striking airborne targets WELL outside Russian airspace.

S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
S-300VM missile system - Wikipedia
S-300 missile system - Wikipedia (The S-400 has a reported range of 400km. Capable of hitting airborne targets well inside of Ukraine)
 
Last edited:
bluesteel said:
Bay of Pigs invasion, (April 17, 1961), abortive invasion of Cuba at the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), or Playa Girón (Girón Beach) to Cubans, on the southwestern coast by some 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Fidel Castro. The invasion was financed and directed by the U.S. government.

Swap Cuba for Ukraine, and the US for Russia.

Russia don't want a NATO member on their doorstep any more than the US wanted communist Cuba on theirs.
Click to expand...

Um, I know. It was barely a US military mission, let alone NATO.

As you didn't answer the question, I'll ask again:

Why are you insistent on equating US activity with NATO action?
 
bluesteel said:
Bay of Pigs invasion, (April 17, 1961), abortive invasion of Cuba at the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs), or Playa Girón (Girón Beach) to Cubans, on the southwestern coast by some 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Fidel Castro. The invasion was financed and directed by the U.S. government.

Swap Cuba for Ukraine, and the US for Russia.

Russia don't want a NATO member on their doorstep any more than the US wanted communist Cuba on theirs.
Click to expand...
They already had Communist Cuba on their doorstep! That wasn’t the problem!

And, lest we skip past the fact, the US was not an expansionary force in their hemisphere, either. They do try to prop up democracies and undermine dictatorships (or did beforeTrump took a liking to the whole Dictator thing!), but are not, and do not, amass troops all along the borders of countries and then play dangerous games of chicken.

This whole notion of Russia as delicate flower just seeking to hold back the NATO hordes has to be a joke!

Or, are you just an avowed Communist, not quite seeing your beloved Fatherland as the crumbling wreck it is, dependent on an old KGB Dictator and fossil fuels for its survival, and desperate to remain a Superpower merely by dint of its weaponry, not economic might?
 
Last edited:
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Russia have highly mobile missile defence systems capable of striking airborne targets WELL outside Russian airspace.

S-200 (missile) - Wikipedia
S-300VM missile system - Wikipedia
S-300 missile system - Wikipedia (The S-400 has a reported range of 400km. Capable of hitting airborne targets well inside of Ukraine)
Click to expand...
It would be crazy not to have defence systems that reach beyond your borders. That’s the whole point in a WMD world.

The key difference is defence!

Invading another country is a whole other matter, as you, of course, understand.
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
They already had Communist Cuba on there doorstep! That wasn’t the problem!

And, lest we skip past the fact, the US was not an expansionary force in their hemisphere, either. They do try to prop up democracies and undermine dictatorships (or did beforeTrump took a liking to the whole Dictator thing!), but are not, and do not, amass troops all along the borders of countries and then play dangerous games of chicken.

This whole notion of Russia as delicate flower just seeking to hold back the NATO hordes has to be a joke!

Or, are you just an avowed Communist, not quite seeing your beloved Fatherland as the crumbling wreck it is, dependent on an old KGB Dictator and fossil fuels for its survival, and desperate to remain a Superpower merely by dint of its weaponry, not economic might?
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone would describe Fulgencio Batista as democratic. He was a nasty **** but he was the US’s nasty **** so we will turn a blind eye on that one ;)
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It would be crazy not to have defence systems that reach beyond your borders. That’s the whole point in a WMD world.

The key difference is defence!

Invading another country in a whole other matter, as you, of course, understand.
Click to expand...

If a countries defensive weapon makes you impotent it can’t be considered purely in benign terms. However no amount of anti missile systems on the border of Russia would stop them landing a nuke on top of the White House - surely that would be the remit of re-entry defence systems in and around the US.

They do reduce Russias ability to bully its neighbours however so from a Russian perspective are a bit of a nagging inconvenience.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It would be crazy not to have defence systems that reach beyond your borders. That’s the whole point in a WMD world.

The key difference is defence!

Invading another country in a whole other matter, as you, of course, understand.
Click to expand...
That's my point. Those missile systems could be used offensively against Ukrainian aircraft (or other nations aircraft) that are attempting to repel a Russian invasion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top