Russian invasion of Ukraine

[HK Hibee]

4 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

You've reminded me that a few years ago, Putin commented that the Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth made a good target. 

It must "rip the knittin" of strategists that big pieces of kit, from tanks to carriers, can be rendered useless by weapons costing a tiny fraction of their targets. 

During the Falklands "conflict" the £23m+ HMS Sheffield was sunk by 2 exocet missile fired from 20+ miles away, costing about $200,000 each. 

 

I am not a military expert but I imagine there are a lot of folk rethinking what is needed to win the next war/ conflict. Couple of things spring to mind.  1. Ukraine have really focused on disrupting supplies/ logistics and so how do you protect those in future.  2. Use of some more commercial tech such as drones. 

[renton]

52 minutes ago, HK Hibee said:

I am not a military expert but I imagine there are a lot of folk rethinking what is needed to win the next war/ conflict. Couple of things spring to mind.  1. Ukraine have really focused on disrupting supplies/ logistics and so how do you protect those in future.  2. Use of some more commercial tech such as drones. 

Yeah, there is increasingly no such thing as 'front lines' when you have access to systems that can detect and hit dozens of miles behind your leading echelon. More than the sharp pointy bits though is the increased situational awareness that things like drones are giving forces - particularly in terms of target aquisition. Being able to counter drones, disaggregate forces during transit and protect them... that's a lot of thinking to do for armies now.

In fairness though the Russians aren't exactly good at logistics, and frequently outrun their supplies, then get bogged down. At the start of all this there were maps superimposing US/UK progress in Iraq in 2003 vs how quickly the Russians had advanced but generally this is down to the fact that in the West doctrine is to stay close to your logistics tail with some margin applied, which makes it harder to disrupt, if slower to advance.

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 hours ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said:

 

 

I prefer the Russians to Pink Floyd.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

9 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I prefer the Russians to Pink Floyd.

^^^^^^

Collaborator.

[Sweet Pete]

20 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

That would be quite something, given how the Finnish have been nervous about joining for years due to aggressive Russian talk their way about it.

Now that the world has seen the Russians lies about their military might for the fiction that they are, hopefully we'll see plenty more fringe smaller nations hopping on board the bloc and giving twos up to the evil empire in the east. I'll pish my frillies when I see the Finns (and Swedes and others) stare the Russians in the face and say "And? What are YOU going to do about it?".

The Russians will then attack Finland by paying George Galloway to send a tweet that says "Finland is rubbish".

[Jacksgranda]

3 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Well if you can't be certain who the baddies and 'nazis' are, you can just set about indiscriminately murdering the entire population and solve your problem that way. If anyone knows anything about the mechanics of genocide, I'd expect it to be a country that in living memory has both been on the receiving end of it, and dished it out to their own population.

In the early 1990's I never thought I'd see the day that Russia had regressed into being a more authoritarian, repressive, illiberal, and murderous State than it was at any time since the death of old Uncle Joe, yet here we are. It's difficult not to wonder about your average Russian citizen when they are fed a constant diet of lies and propaganda, but if the figures quoted about general support for the conflict in Ukraine are in any way accurate, you have to ask yourself why they seem to be happy living in a place that is perpetually a global pariah. I've read a lot about Russian mindset and the difference in attitudes and perceptions between westerners and folk to the East of Poland, but I'm fucked if I can get my head around some of it. 

If only we had a qualified historian on the board to explain it all...

[Wee Bully]

49 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

If only we had a qualified historian on the board to explain it all...

By “explain it all”, I presume you mean “give his latest hot take from the basement”?

[Jacksgranda]

[Newbornbairn]

2 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:

By “explain it all”, I presume you mean “give his latest hot take from the basement”?

By that you mean "talk out his arse"?

[Wee Bully]

3 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

By that you mean "talk out his arse"?

Yes, and then scurrying up the stairs to tell his mum he’s won the internet again. 

[Newbornbairn]

I'm hoping this reminds people that there are still bad b*****ds out there who will, given the chance, utterly f**k over other countries. All the preachy disarmament pish and all the brutal Tory cuts to the armed forces have to become a thing of the past. 

[Loonytoons]

I prefer the Russians to Pink Floyd.

Division Bellender

[dirty dingus]

Has the twat in the hat or any other apologists backed the Kremlin denials of blasting refugees with a missile at Kramatorsk?

[Bairnardo]

I'm hoping this reminds people that there are still bad b*****ds out there who will, given the chance, utterly f**k over other countries. All the preachy disarmament pish and all the brutal Tory cuts to the armed forces have to become a thing of the past. 

Yes, more nuclear weapons is certainly my takeaway from this.

[Newbornbairn]

26 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

53 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

I'm hoping this reminds people that there are still bad b*****ds out there who will, given the chance, utterly f**k over other countries. All the preachy disarmament pish and all the brutal Tory cuts to the armed forces have to become a thing of the past. 

Yes, more nuclear weapons is certainly my takeaway from this.

Do you think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons?

[Bairnardo]

Just now, Newbornbairn said:

Do you think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons?

Dunno mate. Just don't want to see more of them tbh, under any circumstances. 

[Sweet Pete]

12 minutes ago, Newbornbairn said:

Do you think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept their nuclear weapons?

Yes, I'm confident they'd gamble (perfectly reasonably) that Ukraine would not have launched nukes into their neighbour in response to a conventional land war.

Nukes don't get used. And because they don't get used (because the consequences of use are too far reaching), they cease to become a deterrent. They become moot.

A well funded, trained and equipped conventional military where land, sea and air forces are fully cooperative and integrated is a better deterrent against foreign invasion.

[Boo Khaki]

Yeah, it's debatable whether nukes act as a deterrent to aggression by conventional means. All we have to go on is the fact that nuclear armed states tend to be isolated, or have hoofing great conventional forces that act as a deterrent anyway, so they've not really been subject to invading powers down the years regardless of their nuclear capabilities. The UK had a deterrent in the 80's and it didn't dissuade the Argentinians from occupying the Falklands. Granted, a calculated gamble, but still, an example of a non-nuclear nation aggressing a nuclear armed power. It appears the concept of MAD serves to prevent pre-emptive nuclear strikes, again debatable, but until such time a nuclear power pre-emptively nukes a fellow nuclear armed nation, you have to conclude that it is working. Does having a deployable deterrent absolutely preclude conventional attacks though? If you pushed me, I'd say no. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Boo Khaki

[ICTChris]

55 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Has the twat in the hat or any other apologists backed the Kremlin denials of blasting refugees with a missile at Kramatorsk?

I haven’t see anything from any high profile apologists but online the line is that Russia don’t use that type of missile anymore. There is, however, ample evidence that Russianhas them - they fired them earlier in the war and they’ve been filmed moving them about Belarus.

[Boo Khaki]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

I haven’t see anything from any high profile apologists but online the line is that Russia don’t use that type of missile anymore. There is, however, ample evidence that Russianhas them - they fired them earlier in the war and they’ve been filmed moving them about Belarus.

Don't give the Russian cheerleaders ideas

"Yeah, they couldn't possibly have killed all those civilians with that particular type of missile, because they've run out, having used their entire stock to clear apartment blocks and school buildings in Mariupol"