Jump to content

Russian invasion of Ukraine


Sonam

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

That doesn't look too promising.

1349503.jpg

With Russia's track record on poisoning, I wouldn't be touching any of those bottles.

Edited by Del79
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Hopefully all planes take off from Ibrox and Celtic Park.

Treason and gross lese-majesty.if the Queen's 11 didn't offer their ground and send their squad to the front*

*Before Hearts do it and then claim it was them what won it for a 100 years and more afterwards. 

Edited by williemillersmoustache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

India is asking its nationals to leave Ukraine’s second-largest city of Kharkiv by Wednesday evening, based on information Indian authorities have received from Russia.

External Affairs Ministry spokesman Arindam Bagchi said Indian nationals have been advised to move to three safe zones nine miles away, the Associated press reported.

Bagchi declined to give details about what information New Delhi had received from Russia, which is invading Ukraine.

Bagchi also said nearly 17,000 Indian nationals, mostly students, out of an estimated 20,000, have left Ukraine. India is trying to evacuate the rest to nearby countries.

From the Gaurdian Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Videos now of sizable numbers of Russia's surrendering, obviously wary of sharing are they will now be prisoners of war.

War hasn't been declared it's a strange situation 

Are they actually POWs?

I'm the same I wouldn't share either 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On electric cars (as well as switching to renewable energy, more nuclear power stations, heat pumps to replace boilers etc), no question that we are years away yet, but a serious process has to start now. (though it should have been in the planning 10 years or so ago, to wean everyone off Russian supplies then).

Have to wonder what Ukraine might be willing to concede in any talks meantime....whether they would accept losing all of Crimea, Donbas, Luhansk, ....can't see them ever agreeing to a Russian puppet PM though, and that might be the biggest sticking point.

On the other side, we still have no idea of what Russia might look to demand in total.

Edited by Jedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, renton said:

I remember reading that Soviet policy on day 1 of an offensive against NATO was to nuke Denmark, principally because it wasn't a nuclear power and they would, as you say - escalate things to show the Western nuclear powers they were serious but not enough to get a retaliation.

Wouldn't have worked under article V - likely a flexible response where NATO nukes something similarly sized back.

On the other side of the hill, BAOR commanders reckoned they had 48 hours before they started lobbing tactical nukes at Soviet bridgeheads.

Imagine if the first wave is successful enough to incinerate Soviet shock forces en masse, causing a pause in the a Soviet offensive and NATO plans a second wave  - as well as retaliating with it's own nuclear weapons to stop NATO forces exploiting the big radioactive crater where 3rd Shock army used to be, they launch air attacks against likely NATO tactical nuclear delivery sites - airbases, back in the day. To be sure of destroying their targets, the Soviets naturally use nuclear warheads against NATO airbases. They don't get them all because a wave of NATO aircraft were already on the way to try and pre-empt this exact issue.

Meanwhile, Soviet forces nuke likely entry ports for US reinforcements so Portsmouth and Southampton are gone because Royal Navy forces are a tactical nuclear threat, and Hamburg, Broken and Rotterdam get fucked to try and stop US entry. Glasgow gets killed in order to pre-empt UK Polaris use. That's already likely enough for NATO to consider retaliation against Warsaw pact civilian populations.

Of course, carrier groups also have tactical nukes and there are a lot of airbases close to civilian populations. So, 72 hours in and Germany is a radioactive crater, forward airbases on both sides are gone and civilian populations in Eastern Europe, the low Countries and the UK are already suffering grave casualties.

All of which has been done to maintain tactical, military objectives. We haven't even gotten into the strategic city killers yet. That's coming though, as Soviets attempt to catch US carrier forces in Port using the only weapons they have with the range required, which they know will look like a full on first strike to the US so might as well make it one, so Soviets are now targeting US ICBMs... who launch in order to save their missiles and hit back. 

I am probably talking out my arse but there is, as far as I can see, no way of stopping escalation once you are on the nuclear ladder.

I don't think it works like that. From what I've read the USA has a certain number of preplanned nuclear war target strategies aiming to 'win' the exchange, they aren't just going to start going back and forth dependent on the other sides reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Detournement said:

I don't think it works like that. From what I've read the USA has a certain number of preplanned nuclear war target strategies aiming to 'win' the exchange, they aren't just going to start going back and forth dependent on the other sides reactions.

Well, no - flexible response replaced Eisenhower's one step over the line is total annihalation strategy. Ever since there has always been on both sides an assumption that you could trade nuclear atrocities at a like for like scale without it getting 'out of hand'. No doubt the US in paricular have plans for first strike, second strike strategic exchanges of course. The point was to illustrate that there is no way a "limited" nuclear exchange is even possible, even with the 'best' intentions in keeping it to the battlefield - escalation is impossible to stop.

My example of course is almost certainly made redundant since all planners on both sides work from the perspective that they both know how the other will react, so skip out the middle bit and just go straight to the all out strikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian MOD gives casualty figures of 498 killed and 1500 wounded.

Highly likely this is significantly understated, as all casualty figures are in Russian conflicts. The Ukrainians claiming nearly 6,000 Russians killed. US DoD estimate 2,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BFTD said:

I'm sure I remember that being a concern when the initial tests of nuclear bombs were being performed.

Of course, they did it anyway.

Sorry if already posted but half of the cast of the 1956 film The Conquerer died of cancer (including John Wayne) after filming downwind of some nuclear tests in Utah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Russia’s defence ministry said 498 Russian soldiers had been killed in Ukraine since the beginning of its invasion of Ukraine, Russian state news agency RIA is reporting.

The ministry said 1,597 Russians have been wounded so far, according to Russian media reports. It marks the first time Moscow has released figures for casualties sustained during the invasion.

Russia’s defence ministry also said that more than 2,870 Ukrainian soldiers and “nationalists” had been killed and about 3,700 wounded, according to Interfax.

The Guardian cannot independently verify the Russian figures and there was no immediate comment from Ukraine

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The United Nations has voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of its forces, in a global expression of outrage that highlighted Russia’s increasing isolation, Julian Borger writes.

In an emergency session of the UN’s general assembly, 141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against.

The resolution, which was co-sponsored by 94 countries, said the UN “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine”. It demanded that “the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine” and “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces”.

The resolution is not legally binding, but is an expression of the views of the UN membership, aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow and its ally, Belarus.

On Friday, Russia was the sole vote against a similar resolution in the security council, but because Russia is one of the five powers with a veto, the resolution was not upheld, so Ukraine’s allies referred the matter to the general assembly.

It is first time in 40 years, the security council has referred a crisis to the assembly and only the 11th time an emergency session of the UN general assembly has been called since 1950.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

Sorry if already posted but half of the cast of the 1956 film The Conquerer died of cancer (including John Wayne) after filming downwind of some nuclear tests in Utah.

I can see why John Wayne was the natural choice to play an Asian man 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...