Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[PussEKatt]

NATO need to do something positive in this war because China are now sabre rattling and the USA are sending more military over here because of it.If Russia is not stopped soon,this could esculate into WW3.IMHO China is watching how much help NATO is giving Ukraine and what the general feeling is among western countries ( eg,how hard are they going to push Russia ) not hard enough I think.

[villa89]

4 hours ago, magnkarl said:

According to German media Russia are heavily linked to the right-wing attempt at a coup in Germany. 

Russia have been meddling in western politics unopposed for far too long. Look at the Tory party, Trump, etc. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

NATO need to do something positive in this war because China are now sabre rattling and the USA are sending more military over here because of it.If Russia is not stopped soon,this could esculate into WW3.IMHO China is watching how much help NATO is giving Ukraine and what the general feeling is among western countries ( eg,how hard are they going to push Russia ) not hard enough I think.

Is it still March 2022 in Australia?

I'm unsure of your news source but NATO itself cannot do anything, no member state has been attacked and it is a defensive alliance.

USA and most of it's NATO partners are doing a hell of a lot, UK included (and even Australia).

China are not sabre rattling at all, in fact if you listen to what has gone on behind the scenes via back channels, it is supposedly China that has told Putin in no uncertain terms that Nukes are off the table

The Western countries apart from a select few are solidly behind Ukraine. Even France appeared to be pulling in the right direction until Macron went into Dickhead mode again the other day.

Understand this, There will be no WW3 out of the Ukraine War, there will be no nukes used. Russia will eventually lose. Russia does not have limitless supplies of war machinery and an awful lot of it is spent, hell they've even killed most of the battle hardened troops they had

If China is watching this with interest in regards to a response from the west, they will not be planning to attack Taiwan anytime soon. Taiwan has better weapons than Ukraine, it already has Patriots for example. CHina will also see that "The West" has thrown an awful lot of ordnance, training, advice and intelligence Ukraine's way and will be just as likely to do that to Taiwan. China will also note how shite Russia's equipment is as China has actually bought some of it. Oh and China doesn't have any battle hardened troops in the first place, the last time they fought any kind of meaningful land battle was 1984

[Tayls]

Should we be concerned by the Ukrainian position at the moment. I don’t think they are making ground and are actually looking likely to be pushed back again in the areas around Kreminna etc? 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Just to add to the post from @bickster

We are not heading into WW3. That would require at least 2 powerful military alliances.  There is only 1.  China and Russia combined would probably be less effective than China.  

Nuclear strikes do not happen quickly regardless of what Hollywood tells you.  Nukes need to be transported, maintained,  fueled , armed and deployed. NATO has the world's best intelligence network.  NATO would know if something major was in preparation.  You would see preparations.  There are none.  

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke.  People use this to refer to small yield weapons which have enough power to destroy military targets without taking out nearby cities.  They take out tactical targets not strategic ones.   But they still release radiation and radioactive fallout.  Ukraine is surrounded by Russia and NATO.  They are not going to risk fallout hitting themselves or NATO. 

Whoever fires a nuke first is at a massive disadvantage.   If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine it would probably face a conventional attack without precedent from NATO, China and many other countries.  Their ability to launch a second nuke would be massively degraded in days.  

Russia starting WW3 by using nukes to retain Crimea is as ridiculous as the UK using nukes on France to retain the Channel Islands.  

Russia's ability to take out incoming nukes is at an all time low.  They have expended huge amounts of missiles and their air defences are clustered around Ukraine.  Their air defences have proven to be below average at best.  

Russia is not a credible threat to NATO and will not become one for many years. 

[Davkaus]

24 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

 

Nuclear strikes do not happen quickly regardless of what Hollywood tells you.  Nukes need to be transported, maintained,  fueled , armed and deployed. NATO has the world's best intelligence network.  NATO would know if something major was in preparation.  You would see preparations.  There are none.  

 

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear weapons, or the military in general, but I'd have thought the whole point of a nuclear deterrent and MAD is that you keep these things ready to go at all times

[LondonLax]

Yeah, they are pretty pointless as a deterrent if they can all be taken out with conventional weapons before you got a chance to use them

[ender4]

39 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear weapons, or the military in general, but I'd have thought the whole point of a nuclear deterrent and MAD is that you keep these things ready to go at all times

Some Russian general sold the red push button on Ebay. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

59 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I know absolutely nothing about nuclear weapons, or the military in general, but I'd have thought the whole point of a nuclear deterrent and MAD is that you keep these things ready to go at all times

Yes and no.  

A proportion of weapons are always ready to go.  But not all. Even missiles in silos need maintenance.  Shorter range missiles are kept in safe areas and are moved into position.  Some are loaded onto planes for air launch.  A proportion of Russian nukes are simple free falling bombs.  They need to be moved to airfields and attached to planes.  Missiles in subs are ready to go but the order to fire needs to be transmitted and received.

If you do all of these things at the same time it stands out like a beacon.  

The UK keeps less than 50% of its capacity ready to go at short notice.  

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Mandy Lifeboats
Spelling mishsteaks

[sidcow]

2 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Some Russian general sold the red push button on Ebay. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Nuclear war is a mathematical equation.  Some of your weapons will not be available.  Some will fail to launch. Some will fail in flight.  Some will fail to detonate.  Some will be intercepted.  Some will be wildly off target.  Some will detonate in locations that drastically reduce their impact (seas, rivers).  

The less you fire the less hit.  You simply could not risk making a first strike with just the percentage that's instantly available.  

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Just to add to the post from @bickster

We are not heading into WW3. That would require at least 2 powerful military alliances.  There is only 1.  China and Russia combined would probably be less effective than China.  

Nuclear strikes do not happen quickly regardless of what Hollywood tells you.  Nukes need to be transported, maintained,  fueled , armed and deployed. NATO has the world's best intelligence network.  NATO would know if something major was in preparation.  You would see preparations.  There are none.  

There is no such thing as a tactical nuke.  People use this to refer to small yield weapons which have enough power to destroy military targets without taking out nearby cities.  They take out tactical targets not strategic ones.   But they still release radiation and radioactive fallout.  Ukraine is surrounded by Russia and NATO.  They are not going to risk fallout hitting themselves or NATO. 

Whoever fires a nuke first is at a massive disadvantage.   If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine it would probably face a conventional attack without precedent from NATO, China and many other countries.  Their ability to launch a second nuke would be massively degraded in days.  

Russia starting WW3 by using nukes to retain Crimea is as ridiculous as the UK using nukes on France to retain the Channel Islands.  

Russia's ability to take out incoming nukes is at an all time low.  They have expended huge amounts of missiles and their air defences are clustered around Ukraine.  Their air defences have proven to be below average at best.  

Russia is not a credible threat to NATO and will not become one for many years. 

You are right, NATO is a credible treat to Russia. 

[bannedfromHandV]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

You are right, NATO is a credible treat to Russia. 

Go on then, I’ll bite.

In what way is NATO a threat to the security of the people of Russia? 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

You are right, NATO is a credible treat to Russia. 

Russia is the threat. There is no other credible way to interpret the situation

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Go on then, I’ll bite.

In what way is NATO a threat to the security of the people of Russia? 

You know, similar to how France and Poland were a threat to German lebensraum in the thirties. 

[fruitvilla]

5 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Go on then, I’ll bite.

In what way is NATO a threat to the security of the people of Russia? 

For God's sake man, learn to read. NATO is a credible treat to Russia.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

For God's sake man, learn to read. NATO is a credible treat to Russia.

Well, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Well, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation 

I do like the sound of the "North Atlantic Threaty Organisation".   

 

[PussEKatt]

22 hours ago, bickster said:

Is it still March 2022 in Australia?

I'm unsure of your news source but NATO itself cannot do anything, no member state has been attacked and it is a defensive alliance.

USA and most of it's NATO partners are doing a hell of a lot, UK included (and even Australia).

China are not sabre rattling at all, in fact if you listen to what has gone on behind the scenes via back channels, it is supposedly China that has told Putin in no uncertain terms that Nukes are off the table

The Western countries apart from a select few are solidly behind Ukraine. Even France appeared to be pulling in the right direction until Macron went into Dickhead mode again the other day.

Understand this, There will be no WW3 out of the Ukraine War, there will be no nukes used. Russia will eventually lose. Russia does not have limitless supplies of war machinery and an awful lot of it is spent, hell they've even killed most of the battle hardened troops they had

If China is watching this with interest in regards to a response from the west, they will not be planning to attack Taiwan anytime soon. Taiwan has better weapons than Ukraine, it already has Patriots for example. CHina will also see that "The West" has thrown an awful lot of ordnance, training, advice and intelligence Ukraine's way and will be just as likely to do that to Taiwan. China will also note how shite Russia's equipment is as China has actually bought some of it. Oh and China doesn't have any battle hardened troops in the first place, the last time they fought any kind of meaningful land battle was 1984

Im just stating what was on the news the other day.That the USA has built a base in the Northern territory ( this base has been in operation for a while now ) and they are increasing the amount of troops sent there because of China.

[Lichfield Dean]

So going to open a sweet shop called the North Atlantic Treat Organisation