• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

We just need to build a brick-ton of drones and/or buy them from elsewhere.
Or a much simpler trick would be to drop off huge quantities of poisoned vodka labelled "Mother Russia is Great"; the Russians will happily drink it once they know the reality of the warzone.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Rory making the mistake everyone in the west has always made re; Russia: looking at it militarily through western lens.

Let's take tanks:
- Russian military doctrine is to have tanks that are easy to make, maintain and (at the end of the day) lose. They've got a s*** tonne of sh**y soviet era tanks and iterative upgrades of the same. They get blown up relatively easily but who cares when you can make a new one in about 30 mins.
- western tanks are far better. Technologically advanced, I.e. the challenger 2 has a really complicated membrane based armour that absorbs the energy of even direct hits by anti tank fire. However, if one of them gets destroyed it's basically a disaster as you ain't getting a replacement for ages. They also need really sophisticated maintenance.

We've been sat here laughing at Russian "meat grinder" tactics and that they didn't "sweep through" Ukrsine. That's never been Russian military doctrine. Ever. It's always been to overwhelm and grind down via weight of numbers of poorly trained (but disoensible) troops and cheap ass (but disposable) equipment.

Napoleon and Hitler both came a cropper in believing that Russia's tactic of just throwing endless waves of cannon fodder at you while bombarding the sh** out of you with artillery won't grimd you down eventually.
Click to expand...

How would Russia have fared against Napoleon had the British and Ukrainians sided with him rather than against him?
 
Craig_J said:
Fantastic Mikey!

To be honest I do feel this forum has more than one Russian plant

I am struggling to understand how a forum whose membership is pretty stagnant and suddenly has additional members who seem to toe the Kremlin line

Like I obviously do not except any disinformation activist to care about GG in the slightest. Who would?

But here we are
Click to expand...

Hahaha with the revelation of Whatsapp Groups for the rightwingers, I reckon there have been Bat signals (literally) sent out for back up at times
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1897585236562542943
jLkCDF5.png
Click to expand...

Interested, we see stories like this yet on the flipside we're also told that Putin is going to invade the rest of Europe. The media just whip everything up into a frenzy.
 
P.D. said:
Interested, we see stories like this yet on the flipside we're also told that Putin is going to invade the rest of Europe. The media just whip everything up into a frenzy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but nukes. You wouldn't take on a blind paraplegic in a fight if he had an unpinned grenade in his mouth
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yeah, but nukes. You wouldn't take on a blind paraplegic in a fight if he had an unpinned grenade in his mouth
Click to expand...
Yeah and the launch of the cruise missile at Dnipro in November was about refocusing the wests minds on that. The missile managed to evade western air defences gifted to Ukraine. It had a conventional warhead but could have carried nuclear. They did it just after the west announced Ukraine had permission to launch long range missiles into Russian territory. To date I don't know of any such attacks launched by Ukraine since that announcement so I suspect the Dnipro attack did its job.
 
P.D. said:
Interested, we see stories like this yet on the flipside we're also told that Putin is going to invade the rest of Europe. The media just whip everything up into a frenzy.
Click to expand...
Yep that does seem a little contradictory - Russia is about to collapse and simultaneously reconquer the old soviet empire!

But I think what is being suggested by the war analysts is that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, they will consolidate, reconstitute their military and move on to the next country. And we don't need to imagine this is what they want to do as they say it over and over.
 
Craig_J said:
Even though I am very left wing I like Rory. When he ran for Tory leadership he struck me as a bloke with good intentions.
Click to expand...
He is simply a person who 'thinks well' ie can critically think and articulate his thoughts. He doesn't always get it right but he admits that (plus Trump can make an ass of all of us) and is capable of changing his mind on a subject given new information.
He voted Labour at the last election.
 
Jordinho said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1898061163654443365
Click to expand...
Trump has brought more clarity to this conflict. The reason he is tinkled off at Zelensky and is attempting to publically remove the "halo" from his head is that basically:
- Zelensky is going around US and European states saying we have a moral obligation to fund Ukraine's fight against Russia.
- He points out that without Western aid they'll quickly run out of ammunition and be overrun by Russia.
- While actually I think there is a large element of truth in what he's saying, the problem with it is that we have to not only deal with morality in this situation, but REALITY.
- Trump is willing to counter the Ukrainian propoganda that they're able to counter Russia militarily with the reality: even with the huge volumes of western aid - they can't. They can only "lose more slowly".
- Therefore we have to accept in the west that Ukraine's understandable desire to keep fighting "until all pre-2014 borders are restored" is not realistic and there needs to be an end date placed on the huge economic strain on western economies of supporting Ukraine.
- Unfortunately Ukraine have attempted to dig their heals in and therefore Trump has felt that a public humiliation/reality check was necessary.

Like him or loathe him. Doesn't matter. If anyone can think of a better way of getting everyone's heads where they need to be on this issue quickly, I'd like to hear it.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Trump has brought more clarity to this conflict. The reason he is tinkled off at Zelensky and is attempting to publically remove the "halo" from his head is that basically:
- Zelensky is going around US and European states saying we have a moral obligation to fund Ukraine's fight against Russia.
- He points out that without Western aid they'll quickly run out of ammunition and be overrun by Russia.
- While actually I think there is a large element of truth in what he's saying, the problem with it is that we have to not only deal with morality in this situation, but REALITY.
- Trump is willing to counter the Ukrainian propoganda that they're able to counter Russia militarily with the reality: even with the huge volumes of western aid - they can't. They can only "lose more slowly".
- Therefore we have to accept in the west that Ukraine's understandable desire to keep fighting "until all pre-2014 borders are restored" is not realistic and there needs to be an end date placed on the huge economic strain on western economies of supporting Ukraine.
- Unfortunately Ukraine have attempted to dig their heals in and therefore Trump has felt that a public humiliation/reality check was necessary.

Like him or loathe him. Doesn't matter. If anyone can think of a better way of getting everyone's heads where they need to be on this issue quickly, I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...
The UK could easily invade and occupy any country in Europe bar France; even Germany. Our army is far superior and we have nukes. But that doesnt mean that we should, or that the victim wouldn't muster a global alliance against us.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The UK could easily invade and occupy any country in Europe bar France; even Germany. Our army is far superior and we have nukes. But that doesnt mean that we should, or that the victim wouldn't muster a global alliance against us.
Click to expand...
But I don't know what you're trying to say. I'm not arguing the "moral" case for supporting Ukraine. But morality doesn't exist in a vacuum divorced from reality. Unless we are prepared to enter into a direct armed conflict with Russia then Russia is going to continue to push Ukraine back. Initially they're likely to capture all of Donetsk and Luhansk before I imagine consolidating the front line and then make a renewed push for Kherson and the other oblast I can't be bothered to look up how to spell.

Now IMO the current approach of "ooooooh morals" involving throwing tonnes of resources at the problem without a clear end game is frankly f**king idiotic. And who were the key proponents of this idiotic plan? It was Zelensky, who isn't an idiot but is clouded by emotion, it's Biden, who is barely able to string a coherent sentence together and it was Johnson who just saw the whole situation as an opportunity to live out his Winston Churchill "we'll fight them on the beaches" fantasy.

And I'll tell you where to look at where these f**king stupid plans lead to: Afghanistan. We'll fund resistance to the Taliban until basically we can't be arsed any more, then just pull the plug rapidly and let all the people we are supporting retreat chaotically and get overrun by the Taliban. Thats exactly where we are heading for in Ukraine.

What Europe and the US are now, throwing money and weapons and ammo at Ukraine while they're slowly getting pushed back is we are the little boy with our finger in the dyk.

So f**k morals, deal with reality. Let's get a coherent and realistic peace settlement now. Let's actually ask European leaders: "this is more your problem than ours, why don't you tell me what YOU are prepared to do to protect Ukraine long term, then I'll tell you what, if anything, I am prepared to do to support that."
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
Rory making the mistake everyone in the west has always made re; Russia: looking at it militarily through western lens.

Let's take tanks:
- Russian military doctrine is to have tanks that are easy to make, maintain and (at the end of the day) lose. They've got a s*** tonne of sh**y soviet era tanks and iterative upgrades of the same. They get blown up relatively easily but who cares when you can make a new one in about 30 mins.
- western tanks are far better. Technologically advanced, I.e. the challenger 2 has a really complicated membrane based armour that absorbs the energy of even direct hits by anti tank fire. However, if one of them gets destroyed it's basically a disaster as you ain't getting a replacement for ages. They also need really sophisticated maintenance.

We've been sat here laughing at Russian "meat grinder" tactics and that they didn't "sweep through" Ukrsine. That's never been Russian military doctrine. Ever. It's always been to overwhelm and grind down via weight of numbers of poorly trained (but disoensible) troops and cheap ass (but disposable) equipment.

Napoleon and Hitler both came a cropper in believing that Russia's tactic of just throwing endless waves of cannon fodder at you while bombarding the sh** out of you with artillery won't grimd you down eventually.
Click to expand...
They don't have a brick tonne of soviet tanks. They will run out of them by the end of the year. And no, they can't build them in about 30 mins, they can build about 100 per month. Only building 100 per month while losing about 600 on average per month isn't sustainable. It's why most experts are saying that Russia will be in trouble both militarily and economically if the war goes on another year.
 
DubSpur said:
They don't have a brick tonne of soviet tanks. They will run out of them by the end of the year. And no, they can't build them in about 30 mins, they can build about 100 per month. Only building 100 per month while losing about 600 on average per month isn't sustainable. It's why most experts are saying that Russia will be in trouble both militarily and economically if the war goes on another year.
Click to expand...
I really don't think they will.....and yes, they do have a brick tonne of soviet tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back