Ukraine

[fox_favourite]

Russia - “Ukraine’s attack on the bridge was an act of terrorism!”

 

Russia sends missiles to civilian areas which kills civilians and damages homes and schools etc…in retaliation.

 

Russia - “Ukraine did it with their air defence”

 

hhhmmmmm

Edited 10 October 2022 by fox_favourite

[Wymsey]

Russia are denying the bridge attack to retaliate further for themselves/what they want.

 

It's a no-brainer, really.

[LCFCCHRIS]

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-plotting-attack-on-belarus-claims-president-lukashenko-12717581

 

Hopefully the Belorusian soldiers aren't too keen on joining Russia in this.

There is also speculation that Russia is transporting large numbers of troops to Belarus. 

 

[Zear0]

Half expecting to see the Russians through the cannon fodder back into the northern front to make Ukraine draw some forces away from the south and east.

[fox_favourite]

4 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-plotting-attack-on-belarus-claims-president-lukashenko-12717581

 

Hopefully the Belorusian soldiers aren't too keen on joining Russia in this.

There is also speculation that Russia is transporting large numbers of troops to Belarus. 

 

Oh my word. It’s the out right lies from both countries that is so frustrating and frightening. They’ll be no way Ukraine are planning on attacking Belarus. Why would they? They’re fighting for their country. They’ll certainly wouldn’t want to open another front!! And blatantly lying about nato wanting to attack them and as for nuclear attack that is even more ridiculous. Not one country wants a nuclear war outside Russia and Belarus. What he is implying makes absolutely no sense from a sane or tactical position. 
 

He’s obviously being leaned on by Putin as he needs extra troops and support. I just hope that it will lead to protests and their army refuse. I think, unlike Russia, there is more anger in the population against him and this might trigger louder protests. Well, here’s hope. 
 

Also the head of nato, Biden, leader of the eu, UN leader, G7 etc… need to come out loudly and say that this is all nonsense. Make a joint statement to debunk all this quickly. 
 

The world has gone mad!!! 2022 just keeps out doing itself. Covid has sent everyone bonkers. 

Edited 11 October 2022 by fox_favourite

[MPH]

6 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

https://news.sky.com/video/ukraine-plotting-attack-on-belarus-claims-president-lukashenko-12717581

 

Hopefully the Belorusian soldiers aren't too keen on joining Russia in this.

There is also speculation that Russia is transporting large numbers of troops to Belarus. 

 

 

he’s obviously trying to muster up some support internally to justify their increased involvement “ Let’s attack them before they attack us” kind of thing..

[Ginger_Filbert]

The US to send modern air defence systems after the missile attacks yesterday. About time too. 

[Lionator]

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

[fox_up_north]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

Unlikely. Is there a possibility of a nuclear strike from Russia? Perhaps. 

 

But they would be well aware that to do so would absolutely lose any support they have from other big players - China and the Opec oil cartel. These big players are either driven by money or personal interests that aren't served by a world war. 

[Ginger_Filbert]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

I think if he was going to use Nukes he would have done it already, why wait this long and sustain so many losses. 
 

No one knows what’s going through the devils mind but I really don’t think it’ll go nuclear personally. 

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

Russian doctrine suggests the use of such weapons only if first used against them or "if the survival of the state is threatened".

 

Exactly what defines that second term is open to question.

 

13 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Unlikely. Is there a possibility of a nuclear strike from Russia? Perhaps. 

 

But they would be well aware that to do so would absolutely lose any support they have from other big players - China and the Opec oil cartel. These big players are either driven by money or personal interests that aren't served by a world war. 

I don't think international opinion would matter much tbh because one nuclear weapon being used would almost certainly be followed catastrophically by others.

[fox_up_north]

I wouldn't be so sure that one nuclear strike automatically results in another. I still believe that there can be a situation where there would be pause and reflection, before starting nuclear war. 

 

For example - Putin strikes with 1 nuclear weapon. The west (and other parts of the East) act together to work out a response and understand that the least worst option is to just cut all ties with Russia. Yes, it's painful and yes, it leads to short term pain through energy and infrastructure deficiencies but it is vastly better than worldwide destruction. 

 

There would also be the internal wrangling that accompanies a nuclear attack. It is something that still carries so much weight and would be unthinkable to many, even in Russia. 

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I wouldn't be so sure that one nuclear strike automatically results in another. I still believe that there can be a situation where there would be pause and reflection, before starting nuclear war. 

 

For example - Putin strikes with 1 nuclear weapon. The west (and other parts of the East) act together to work out a response and understand that the least worst option is to just cut all ties with Russia. Yes, it's painful and yes, it leads to short term pain through energy and infrastructure deficiencies but it is vastly better than worldwide destruction. 

 

There would also be the internal wrangling that accompanies a nuclear attack. It is something that still carries so much weight and would be unthinkable to many, even in Russia. 

It would be dependent on under what circumstances that weapon is used. By their very own rules, the Russians won't use it unless they are already under nuclear attack or a conventional attack so devastating it threatens the continuity of their country itself - which would imply that they are under attack by more than just Ukrainian forces (and would use more than one weapon because what would the point in holding back?) .

 

In both of those scenarios, I would think that escalation would be inevitable.

 

Of course, it's possible that the Russians choose to seriously bend or even just ignore their own rules on nuclear weapons release and do as you suggested here, in which case what you describe is the most likely outcome and there may well not be escalation. But it would involve them breaking practically every rule on the use of nuclear weapons including their own, so I'm not really sure how likely it is.

[Countryfox]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

Oh no ! ..  don’t mention that cus if Leicester Mac sees it  it’ll set him off and he’ll ..   

 

Too late   ..   

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

Who knows, but just in case. https://www.homesgofast.com/property/sale/iceland/djupivogur/residential-property/the-karlsstadir-farm-4235803

[yorkie1999]

If Ukraine had the ability and the equipment to actually invade Russia and head for Moscow, what use is a nuclear deterent? 

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Who knows, but just in case. https://www.homesgofast.com/property/sale/iceland/djupivogur/residential-property/the-karlsstadir-farm-4235803

An all within a mere 160 miles from one of the most potentially dangerous and violent volcanoes on the planet. 

[yorkie1999]

Just now, Line-X said:

An all within a mere 160 miles from one of the most potentially dangerous and violent volcanoes on the planet. 

At least it's a natural cause of death.

[Leeds Fox]

3 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If Ukraine had the ability and the equipment to actually invade Russia and head for Moscow, what use is a nuclear deterent? 

To threaten a nuclear attack on Kyiv in retaliation or as a deterrent to an invasion of Russia/Moscow. It’s a pretty big deterrent. 

[SpacedX]

10 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

At least it's a natural cause of death.

Great plan...were it not for the hardly insignificant presence of the US Naval Air Station in Keflavik.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It would be dependent on under what circumstances that weapon is used. By their very own rules, the Russians won't use it unless they are already under nuclear attack or a conventional attack so devastating it threatens the continuity of their country itself - which would imply that they are under attack by more than just Ukrainian forces (and would use more than one weapon because what would the point in holding back?) .

 

In both of those scenarios, I would think that escalation would be inevitable.

 

Of course, it's possible that the Russians choose to seriously bend or even just ignore their own rules on nuclear weapons release and do as you suggested here, in which case what you describe is the most likely outcome and there may well not be escalation. But it would involve them breaking practically every rule on the use of nuclear weapons including their own, so I'm not really sure how likely it is.

This is where annexing the Donbas region turns Ukraine advances reclaiming their land as threatening the "continuity of their country" in the mad eyes of Putin.

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

To threaten a nuclear attack on Kyiv in retaliation or as a deterrent to an invasion of Russia/Moscow. It’s a pretty big deterrent. 

That's my point, if an army invaded a country,  it's already too late to use nuclear weapons as a deterent.

[Finnegan]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Does this turn into ww3/nuclear war? Or is it scare mongering?

 

It's scare mongering. Russia's foreign policy is dependant on the projection of power, the image of them as a global military power. 

 

They're master illusionists. They'll reveal their brand new space age infantry power armour or their world leading new tank design and super tech jets with all this fanfare. Then they'll go to war and use 50 year old tanks and conscripted farmers sharing a cold war AK47 and equally out of date rations because they can't actually afford to outfit an army with the fancy stuff. 

 

The exposure of the Russian army as near literally third world in Ukraine has been the biggest military PR disaster of the 21st century bar none. 

 

With winter fast approaching and Russia's war chest skint they've got two major impending problems:

 

1. The hilarious irony of Russian troops being stuck trying to invade a harsh winter landscape with no effective supply chain to back them up. 

 

2. The looming prospect of having to deliver on their threat of turning off the gas if they want to be taken seriously, which they can't do without giving themselves an even bigger headache because its a two way street, the gas is making them billions and - again - wars are extremely expensive. 

 

So they're fvcked. They're really fvcked and they're conceding ground and butt sliding backwards and Putin trying to formally annex regions he's barely occupying looks hilariously desperate to the outside world. 

 

All of this means they desperately need to project some power and try to once more be an existential threat to The West. Which is why Russian state media and Russian assets around the world like extremely obvious elected members of the GOP and far right conservative pundits that get bankrolled with shady Russian donations have gone in to overdrive recently hyping up the prospect of nuclear war and how big, bad and scary Russia apparently is again. 

 

Even Elon fvcking Musk is at it, the raging bellend. 

 

It's chest puffing nonsense. They can't and won't press the Big Red Button, they just want enough of the rest of the world to be scared they will as a last desperate bid to give them some political currency to try and hold on to some of Ukraine at the end of the war because if it goes on through this winter the likelihood is they won't even be able to keep Crimea let alone Luhansk and Donetsk and they can kiss the gains of this war goodbye. 

 

Edited 11 October 2022 by Finnegan

[Leeds Fox]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That's my point, if an army invaded a country,  it's already too late to use nuclear weapons as a deterent.

Having the capacity to demolish a country is the deterrent.

[ian__marshall]

Interesting comments from Lavrov. Looks like Russia's will to prolong the war is fading. Now might be the time to strike an agreement. I despise everything that Putin has done to Ukraine and can only imagine the anger that Ukrainians now feel towards Russia, however a resolution needs to be found and I think all parties involved in this conflict on both sides need to be realistic in their expectations. Could a deal be struck whereby Russia's annexation of the captured regions is internationally recognised in exchange for a ceasefire and agreement that the remainder of Ukraine will become a Nato member? 

 

That way Putin gets to claim he's denazified these Pro-Russia regions (which admittedly is BS), and Ukraine gets the full protection of the Nato allies moving forward should Russia decide downstream it wants to advance its territory boundaries further. 

 

I don't think Zelensky would settle for this (and rightly so on a purely personal level) but I think Nato need to work really hard on selling the idea as without some concessions this will continue for many years (possibly decades) and there will eventually come a point where Ukraine either concedes more ground, is left with a decimated mess of a country, or this conflict becomes too costly for its allies.