Russia

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

The orange cunt has told Zelensky to accept Putin`s terms or face defeat.... 

Trump = super negotiator.....

 

Maybe a European leader can step in and make Putin about turn?

Edited October 20 by AlexLaw76

[tdmickey3]

35 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Maybe a European leader can step in and make Putin about turn?

The whole world needs to step up... 

They probably wont feel the need to brag about either like Trump who has achieved nothing towards it except cosying up to the warmonger

Edited October 20 by tdmickey3

[east-stand-nic]

23 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

The fact you believe what Putin says everything about you….. 🤡

He loves the orange man baby because he can’t bullshit him

Trump will “negotiate” what is best for Trump

Cue you to come back with some utter drivel until you run out of posts

No answer to my question as ever.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

The whole world needs to step up... 

They probably wont feel the need to brag about either like Trump who has achieved nothing towards it except cosying up to the warmonger

Ok, which European leader should step up then. What about the EU as a whole?

why does it have to be Trump/USA?

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

The whole world needs to step up... 

They probably wont feel the need to brag about either like Trump who has achieved nothing towards it except cosying up to the warmonger

 

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ok, which European leader should step up then. What about the EU as a whole?

why does it have to be Trump/USA?

Can you read? or is that only twitter/X when you manage to do that

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

 

Can you read? or is that only twitter/X when you manage to do that

The whole world isn’t, though. Most of the world could not give a shit to be fair.

This is largely a problem for Europe, so in that respect who in Europe should lead the charge to stare down Putin?

Edited October 20 by AlexLaw76

[benjii]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ok, which European leader should step up then. What about the EU as a whole?

why does it have to be Trump/USA?

Because they guaranteed Ukraine’s safety when it agreed to give up its nukes?

[tdmickey3]

39 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The whole world isn’t, though. Most of the world could not give a shit to be fair.

This is largely a problem for Europe, so in that respect who in Europe should lead the charge to stare down Putin?

NATO, but the whole world should be against the despicable Russian behaviour, do you agree?

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

The orange cunt has told Zelensky to accept Putin`s terms or face defeat.... 

Trump = super negotiator.....

 

Doing his handler's bidding.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

NATO, but the whole world should be against the despicable Russian behaviour, do you agree?

Alexei has been in Putler's corner from the start.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

Because they guaranteed Ukraine’s safety when it agreed to give up its nukes?

So did we. 
 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Alexei has been in Putler's corner from the start.

Don’t get like that because I have been pretty close to reality from the off.

 

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Don’t get like that because I have been pretty close to reality from the off.

 

No, you've just moaned like a bitch about the amount spent on our armed forces from the start.

[AlexLaw76]

25 minutes ago, aintforever said:

No, you've just moaned like a bitch about the amount spent on our armed forces from the start.

That is not all. It’s on here. 

[egg]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Alexei has been in Putler's corner from the start.

He really hasn't. He's just highlighted a reality that other people refused to accept. Russia weren't going to run out of people, weapons, money, support from other countries, etc. He's highlighted that, and was right. 

[whelk]

36 minutes ago, egg said:

He really hasn't. He's just highlighted a reality that other people refused to accept. Russia weren't going to run out of people, weapons, money, support from other countries, etc. He's highlighted that, and was right. 

Just had a look at start if thread. fucking hell time flies. Truss hadn't even become PM back then.

The only winners are the populist parties reacting to people’s discontent with cost of living. 

Gave up early but remember many, not sure if Batman TBF predicting Russia would just roll in

[Jonnyboy]

I trust we will be vigorously calling for sanctions on the US when it starts it's attacks on Venuzuala? Looking forward to all the new flags on people's houses.

[31cc]

On 01/11/2025 at 01:04, Jonnyboy said:

I trust we will be vigorously calling for sanctions on the US when it starts it's attacks on Venuzuala? Looking forward to all the new flags on people's houses.

Get with the times, man, Nigeria is the new evil empire

Trump threatens to go into Nigeria ‘guns-a-blazing’ over attacks on Christians | Donald Trump | The Guardian

[AlexLaw76]

Russia now launches / fires c5000 drones a month into Ukraine, as they slowly continue their advance.

going to run out of weaponry any day now, right?

those sort of figures would be devastating against our own, embarrassingly equipped ground forces.

in a peer-to-peer conventional dust up, Russia would have us done over a weekend. Our forces are in a terrible state as the cuts to our equipment and capability continue. 

Edited yesterday at 05:43 by AlexLaw76

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Russia now launches / fires c5000 drones a month into Ukraine, as they slowly continue their advance.

going to run out of weaponry any day now, right?

those sort of figures would be devastating against our own, embarrassingly equipped ground forces.

in a peer-to-peer conventional dust up, Russia would have us done over a weekend. Our forces are in a terrible state as the cuts to our equipment and capability continue. 

Just as well we’re giving £3b a year of tax payers money to Ukraine then isn’t it. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Russia now launches / fires c5000 drones a month into Ukraine, as they slowly continue their advance.

going to run out of weaponry any day now, right?

those sort of figures would be devastating against our own, embarrassingly equipped ground forces.

in a peer-to-peer conventional dust up, Russia would have us done over a weekend. Our forces are in a terrible state as the cuts to our equipment and capability continue. 

And yet, somehow, Ukraine has survived with even less military resources.  The Russian army still isn't in Kiev which it was going to take in what, two weeks?

Embarrasing for Russia.  

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And yet, somehow, Ukraine has survived with even less military resources.  The Russian army still isn't in Kiev which it was going to take in what, two weeks?

Embarrasing for Russia.  

I am not sure any country, bar possibly the USA, could "take" Ukraine given the incredible amount of high quality equipment, money, ISTAR, Command and Control it has been given.

 

[egg]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

And yet, somehow, Ukraine has survived with even less military resources.  The Russian army still isn't in Kiev which it was going to take in what, two weeks?

Embarrasing for Russia.  

I don't get that reaction at all. This is not about embarrassment of anyone, although Alex makes a good point that our military would likely be embarrassed by Russia.

The people saying that Russia would run out of gear, be on its knees, it's country be in ruins etc, will hopefully realise that they should look beyond the rhetoric they chose to believe. 

There's a link between your post, and the other 2 this morning though. 

Without western support, Russia would be in Kiev with their feet up by now. Whatever we've contributed to prevent that is money well spent. 

[whelk]

So much glee from the Russian fan boys. You know we’re in NATO right?

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I don't get that reaction at all. This is not about embarrassment of anyone, although Alex makes a good point that our military would likely be embarrassed by Russia.

But the UK wouldn't get any support from the West if Russia were to invade, so would have to deal with Russia alone, with our 'pitiful' military?

We are part of NATO.  Our military is part of NATO.  Pretending we are a standalone nation with a standalone military force is deliberately misleading. 

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, yet has had 'defense' support from the West which has stopped Russia in its tracks.  Russia thought it could breeze in to Ukraine, take control of Kiev and move on with life.  They didn't, they were stopped embarrasingly short - way before defense support was supplied by the West.

[AlexLaw76]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

But the UK wouldn't get any support from the West if Russia were to invade, so would have to deal with Russia alone, with our 'pitiful' military?

We are part of NATO.  Our military is part of NATO.  Pretending we are a standalone nation with a standalone military force is deliberately misleading. 

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, yet has had 'defense' support from the West which has stopped Russia in its tracks.  Russia thought it could breeze in to Ukraine, take control of Kiev and move on with life.  They didn't, they were stopped embarrasingly short - way before defense support was supplied by the West.

The point about us being able to 'take on' Russia used for a comparison WRT a country with the 3rd or 4th largest defence budget in the world v a country that does not (historically) spend as much. Mere of a piece of self-reflection about a country on a 'WAR FOOTING'.

We, the UK, with our horrifically hollowed out forces are the leading the defence in Estonia and committed to deploying a Division sized contingent within 10 days of an invasion. That is simply well out of our grasp, both from a capability PoV and a financial one. And we are one of the leading nations within NATO. This Just highlights the pitiful capability across the European contingent, which is due to sub-contracting out our defence to the USA for decades.

We better hope Ukraine can drive Russia out, or Russia down tools and walk away, as the resources currently given Ukraine would be dwarfed by their begging bowl to rebuild the south-eastern part of the country.

Edited yesterday at 07:24 by AlexLaw76

[egg]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

But the UK wouldn't get any support from the West if Russia were to invade, so would have to deal with Russia alone, with our 'pitiful' military?

We are part of NATO.  Our military is part of NATO.  Pretending we are a standalone nation with a standalone military force is deliberately misleading. 

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, yet has had 'defense' support from the West which has stopped Russia in its tracks.  Russia thought it could breeze in to Ukraine, take control of Kiev and move on with life.  They didn't, they were stopped embarrasingly short - way before defense support was supplied by the West.

Of course we'd get support. That doesn't alter that the fact that our military alone would be steamrolled by Russia. There's no point putting out fingers in our ears and ignoring our own countries position. 

It also doesn't make it "embarrassing" to Russia that a NATO backed Ukraine is only losing slowly to Russia. Indeed, I'd turn the argument - it's bloody concerning that Ukraine are still losing despite the resources being thrown at them. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The point about us being able to 'take on' Russia used for a comparison WRT a country with the 3rd or 4th largest defence budget in the world v a country that does not (historically) spend as much. Mere of a piece of self-reflection about a country on a 'WAR FOOTING'.

 

Is that the same country that has the 4th largest purchasing power parity, the country with the largest land mass in world rankings, also the country with the largest supply of natural resources in the world?  That Russia?

I wouldn't expect us to be able to 'take on' that amount of resources and natural power.  I guess that's why we are part of NATO?

It's the same Russia that failed to overturn lowly Ukraine though, before they started to get International support.  Pitifully embarrasing.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Is that the same country that has the 4th largest purchasing power parity, the country with the largest land mass in world rankings, also the country with the largest supply of natural resources in the world?  That Russia?

I wouldn't expect us to be able to 'take on' that amount of resources and natural power.  I guess that's why we are part of NATO?

It's the same Russia that failed to overturn lowly Ukraine though, before they started to get International support.  Pitifully embarrasing.

Lowly Ukraine? They have probably the most highly equipped armed forces in the world outside of the USA.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Of course we'd get support. That doesn't alter that the fact that our military alone would be steamrolled by Russia. 

 

I don't think anyone has said they wouldn't be. Pretty much everyone has pointed out though that that situation would never occur.  We would never be toe to toe with Russia on our own.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is that the same country that has the 4th largest purchasing power parity, the country with the largest land mass in world rankings, also the country with the largest supply of natural resources in the world?  That Russia?

I wouldn't expect us to be able to 'take on' that amount of resources and natural power.  I guess that's why we are part of NATO?

It's the same Russia that failed to overturn lowly Ukraine though, before they started to get International support.  Pitifully embarrasing.

Russia are not fighting Ukraine. That's horribly misleading. Continually using the word embarrassing is embarrassing. 

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Lowly Ukraine? They have probably the most highly equipped armed forces in the world outside of the USA.

Not when Russia invaded they didn't.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, egg said:

Russia are not fighting Ukraine. That's horribly misleading. Continually using the word embarrassing is embarrassing. 

They were when they started their special military operation.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

Not when Russia invaded they didn't.

Oh they were highly equipped (and trained). And rapidly given significant kit, which was expedited when Germany allowed air lanes over their country  for the UK and US to ship 'stuff' into the country 

[egg]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't think anyone has said they wouldn't be. Pretty much everyone has pointed out though that that situation would never occur.  We would never be toe to toe with Russia on our own.

Trump put two fingers up to much of the west earlier this year. He's also blown smoke up Putin's arse at points. He's also unpredictable and capable of turning on a sixpence. 

Personally, I'm not as convinced by US (with Trump at the helm) backing as some.

[whelk]

57 minutes ago, egg said:

Of course we'd get support. That doesn't alter that the fact that our military alone would be steamrolled by Russia. There's no point putting out fingers in our ears and ignoring our own countries position. 

It also doesn't make it "embarrassing" to Russia that a NATO backed Ukraine is only losing slowly to Russia. Indeed, I'd turn the argument - it's bloody concerning that Ukraine are still losing despite the resources being thrown at them. 

NATO backed? Err no

[egg]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

NATO backed? Err no

Not NATO per se, but NATO countries are supplying their hardware, their money, training, etc. Western backed is more accurate. 

[badgerx16]

On paper, ( wars are not fought on paper ), at the start of the SMO there were probably only 2 nations on the planet that could take on Russia single-handed, the US and China. All the talk about the UK being rolled over could be aimed at any other country in the World.

[whelk]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Not NATO per se, but NATO countries are supplying their hardware, their money, training, etc. Western backed is more accurate. 

Of course they are but that’s a world away from NATO releasing their military might, which I am comfortable would annihilate Russia. Pretty sure Putin knows this, so all this UK couldn’t defend itself is moot.

[skintsaint]

Its gone all a bit mad max

 

 

[skintsaint]

43 minutes ago, whelk said:

Of course they are but that’s a world away from NATO releasing their military might, which I am comfortable would annihilate Russia. Pretty sure Putin knows this, so all this UK couldn’t defend itself is moot.

Yeah NATO would quickly get air superiority and then thats that.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

Yeah NATO would quickly get air superiority and then thats that.

when you say NATO, you mean the USA....

Without the USA, we aint doing anything to anyone.

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

when you say NATO, you mean the USA....

Without the USA, we aint doing anything to anyone.

Reckon that European countries could, I am astounded there are still Ukrainian planes in the air after all this time given the number of planes Russia have. Maybe they don't have the pilots or that a lot of these planes are unflyable?

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Reckon that European countries could, I am astounded there are still Ukrainian planes in the air after all this time given the number of planes Russia have. Maybe they don't have the pilots or that a lot of these planes are unflyable?

Europe has, on paper, air superiority over Russia. This is however, very much dependant on the USA still. Without them, there would be massive logistical, integration, command and control gaps when even attempting to maintain high-intensity warfare.

Everything changes with the USA. But they have long been weary of paying for the defence of Europe (whilst, with this administration, getting shit whilst doing so). 

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Without them, there would be massive logistical, integration, command and control gaps when even attempting to maintain high-intensity warfare.

Airpower rankings are more suited to include logistics etc.

https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php

I find it is a bit mad that the US has 4 of the 5 spots! 😅

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Europe has, on paper, air superiority over Russia. This is however, very much dependant on the USA still. Without them, there would be massive logistical, integration, command and control gaps when even attempting to maintain high-intensity warfare.

Everything changes with the USA. But they have long been weary of paying for the defence of Europe (whilst, with this administration, getting shit whilst doing so). 

Is that more reliable than the pre-SMO statistics that showed Russia had over 20 thousand tanks, ( of which a large number turned out to be unserviceable scrap T-55s ) ?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

Airpower rankings are more suited to include logistics etc.

https://www.wdmma.org/ranking.php

I find it is a bit mad that the US has 4 of the 5 spots! 😅

Got to keep feeding the military-industrial complex.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

Reckon that European countries could, I am astounded there are still Ukrainian planes in the air after all this time given the number of planes Russia have. Maybe they don't have the pilots or that a lot of these planes are unflyable?

Maybe?! 🤣

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, around 35 years ago, Russia's overall defence spending has been roughly level with our own. That's the UK, not NATO collectively. Yet here is Alexei, sharing graphics which claim that Russia has over 800 fighter/interceptor aircraft.

You really have to admire Russian efficiency, being able to keep eight times the number of aircraft we have airworthy on a very similar budget.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

 

You really have to admire Russian efficiency, being able to keep eight times the number of aircraft we have airworthy on a very similar budget.

Ukraine is doing it's best to ease that burden.

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Maybe?! 🤣

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, around 35 years ago, Russia's overall defence spending has been roughly level with our own. That's the UK, not NATO collectively. Yet here is Alexei, sharing graphics which claim that Russia has over 800 fighter/interceptor aircraft.

You really have to admire Russian efficiency, being able to keep eight times the number of aircraft we have airworthy on a very similar budget.

You're comparing apples with kebabs there mate. We buy a lot of overpriced American stuff with a weak pound. They are not paying those prices, and their rubles go a lot further than our pounds.