War with Russia

[CXRAndy]

If its true that Russia is in a weak position military and got into a direct conflict with Nato.

I could easily see Russia going for the nuclear option if it were facing certain defeat.

That's the nuclear deterrent

 

[Milzy]

They’re skilled bike mechanics.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I concede that Crimea is a sticky point. Negotiations can happen involving that but Putin is not one for negotiating.
If Putin had settled on Crimea then we wouldn't be where we are today. I also don't think he'll stick with Ukraine if he wins that one.

Crimea was a self-governing part of Ukraine before Russia invaded, they want Crimea for they army boats, as a plus they don't have many of them anymore so that argument holds less water..
Crimea shows what inaction on Russia's illegal's actions causes, giving that or anything else is rewarding an aggressor. Hitler didn't get to say ''oh you lot are winning, let me keep Groningen, Friesland, a bit of Poland, Maybe Legoland as well and we are friends and there will be peace..'' Because he did that before and betrayed us. Putin is just as reliable

I don't quite understand that statement.
I have suggested in previous posts that Russia is extremely weak and a NATO could flatten Russia.
The European rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. We do not know what (serving) military experts think.

We most likely can, however the price of one death soldier is nothing to the likes of Putin, a completely different story in any european/Nato lead army.
The battlefield is very very wide now, we have Finland Poland, Lithuania, Estonia,Ukraine (think i forgot one or two) all sharing a border with Russia, however preperations for a possible full on attack of defence from Russia never stopped, they stated just after the second world war, and was then a mostly US-led thing, the newest iteration is ''Project DEU'' and is from ''22 and in full swing.

I do not know what news I swallow exactly. I have been critical of our main stream press. The Beeb bollox is this odd paranoia with a twinge of Nuclear threat (which I do not think exists anymore - see post about 2 failed ICBM launches recently. If they can't even successfully launch their latest and greatest and most technologically advanced ICBM's then those tin cigars stuck in the silo's are probably well past their sell by date or cardboard cut outs brought out for parade day). So that's news I don't swallow. Next?

That's mainly due to Medelev and that Russian pundit that hate's America but love his American made airpods so much forgot his name, continually hammering about their Nukes. However reality is a nuclear weapons causes lots of death and destruction, so it' an great tool to spread fear, that why the US bomb on Japan worked so well, Japan was fully surrounded, all their allies already where defeated or capitulated. In Russia's case however if they would be able to launch an nuclear strike and that's an very big *if* ICBM's are expensive to maintain, nuclear warheads even more so, the question remains if they actually have the abilty to launch a Nuclear missile. But if we then pretend they do, with all the eyes, air defences etc. pointed at them, and the amazing reliability records of Russia's launchers the chances of the rocket reaching it's target are very slim.

So in short yes i agree with you the ''nuclear narrative'' is to easyly used to scare us for angry russia.

I could post all of the negative, the gore and horror and death in Ukraine (which to be fair, I have done if you read my posts) but this just fuels the often irrational pessimists and cynics. I tend to post what positive news I can glean out of the various news agencies and I will also provide the source so it's up to you to interpret that news source as credible or propaganda.

Ukraine isn't holy either they have their fair share of trying the narrative to be portrayed more positive, a big difference however is that they try to change, the ''sovjet mentality'' is les prominent just not yet completely gone just as corruption.

The Economist doesn't think the Russian economy is in melt-down yet.
In 2023 and 2024 Russia’s economy boomed. Despite the implementation of Western sanctions after Russia invaded Ukraine, the country sold plenty of hydrocarbons to willing buyers, including China and India. The government massively boosted spending on welfare, infrastructure and the armed forces. In 2024 the economy grew by more than 4%, a fantastic performance by the standards of most big economies.
Figures published on Friday will show a different picture. They are expected to confirm growth of a mere 0.6% in the third quarter of 2025. Data on net exports will also look unimpressive. Why the turnaround? Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has taken his foot off the accelerator when it comes to spending. High interest rates, which the central bank implemented to ward off inflation, are biting. Western sanctions may be starting to hurt too. The Russian economy is not in crisis. But the party days are over.

The problem with Russian figures is that the come from Russian sources. They have so much corruption, deliberately mispresented numbers, and false presentations that the numbers the economist quotes really say nothing at all.

Historical attempts suggest that attempting to invade Russia is a high risk activity.

Any invasion is, the flip side is,waiting for Russia to grow stronger Putin to die and have a younger more deranged one take his place is a high risk activity too.
A risk worth taking if Putin actually backs off and pulls all his troops from Ukraine without futher conditions, but if not any ceasefire/peace deal is delay of execution

It’s like when you have nice cars & bikes, you keep them hidden away & polish them up. Don’t face risking them getting them in the rain.

Yes ok, but Russia already tried they nice tools like the ''terminator MBT'' and it failed, attacked a lot of trees and then got hit by a rpg or howitzer, they also brought one ''armata'' to the battle field be to where afraid to put it in a position where it would be useful and then it mysteriously got pulled out, perhaps it had a other breakdown, like it did on the parade, when they presented it.
Many of their SU-whatever things are scared of Ukraine's in comparison to their newer SU-whatever's aging F-16 because the F16 Radar can shoot them down before they even knew what hit them. Whilst on paper Russia's planes should have the clear overhand.

So if they really have the best tools in the shed, it's because they realize their best tools are actually crap. Which tracks because if you look at sovjet war doctrine VS the west then Sovjet doctrine is more based on destroy everything put on lots of troops and rebuild when all opposition has been killed.
Where as the west has much more experience in hybrid warfare, assisting army's and civilians against all kind of treats from terrorist to guerilla movements.
and i say sovjet a lot because what mainstream media doesn't seem to pick up is that Putin is a big fan of this ideology.
Russia's approach doesn't require precision, the west's approach does, that what we see on the battlefield(s)

 

[Pinno718]

Crimea was a self-governing part of Ukraine before Russia invaded, they want Crimea for they army boats, as a plus they don't have many of them anymore so that argument holds less water..
Crimea shows what inaction on Russia's illegal's actions causes, giving that or anything else is rewarding an aggressor. Hitler didn't get to say ''oh you lot are winning, let me keep Groningen, Friesland, a bit of Poland, Maybe Legoland as well and we are friends and there will be peace..'' Because he did that before and betrayed us. Putin is just as reliable

Putin has signed 90 'peace deals' (that was the stat I picked up and should have kept the source) and honoured none. The Chechyn population still remembers Putin killing their fathers and mothers and there are groups now active in Chechnya who are anti-Russian (it's all in this video as Ukraine strikes a Chechyn Govt. building strike, resistance. Remember, Putin annihilated Chechnya after signing a peace. Oh yes, he's reliable alright.

We most likely can, however the price of one death soldier is nothing to the likes of Putin, a completely different story in any european/Nato lead army.
The battlefield is very very wide now, we have Finland Poland, Lithuania, Estonia,Ukraine (think i forgot one or two) all

All these border nations are arming themselves to the teeth (and preparing).. Does Putin really think that with his very diminished personnel he can invade Europe... on foot and in cardboard tank cut outs?

That's mainly due to Medelev and that Russian pundit that hate's America but love his American made airpods so much forgot his name, continually hammering about their Nukes. However reality is a nuclear weapons causes lots of death and destruction, so it' an great tool to spread fear, that why the US bomb on Japan worked so well, Japan was fully surrounded, all their allies already where defeated or capitulated. In Russia's case however if they would be able to launch an nuclear strike and that's an very big *if* ICBM's are expensive to maintain, nuclear warheads even more so, the question remains if they actually have the abilty to launch a Nuclear missile. But if we then pretend they do, with all the eyes, air defences etc. pointed at them, and the amazing reliability records of Russia's launchers the chances of the rocket reaching it's target are very slim.

So in short yes i agree with you the ''nuclear narrative'' is to easyly used to scare us for angry russia.

Those nukes are so dated (same in the West) because they are so expensive to maintain/replace.
I doubt too that many of them are capable of reaching their targets. It's just posturing by Putin as if we are going to quake in our boots and succumb. Not a chance in hell.

Ukraine isn't holy either they have their fair share of trying the narrative to be portrayed more positive, a big difference however is that they try to change, the ''sovjet mentality'' is les prominent just not yet completely gone just as corruption.


The problem with Russian figures is that the come from Russian sources. They have so much corruption, deliberately mispresented numbers, and false presentations that the numbers the economist quotes really say nothing at all.

There are external bodies that are following this closely and there are export stats and financial trails so it isn't all blind pontification. You know things are bad when even the Swiss act: https://www.news.admin.ch/en/newnsb/kVr4fvF2TU18Pp8JtQLqy

Any invasion is, the flip side is,waiting for Russia to grow stronger Putin to die and have a younger more deranged one take his place is a high risk activity too.
A risk worth taking if Putin actually backs off and pulls all his troops from Ukraine without futher conditions, but if not any ceasefire/peace deal is delay of execution

That's the problem. Putin won't back down. He's already made to look silly. He was going to occupy Ukraine in a few days.
Putin's successor is going to inherit a nation in a very poor state (look up Sh*t fountains - Russian infrastructure is so old, breaches like this are common).
In St Petersburg, Thursday:

So much money has been taken away for the war. There are a number of Russian cities on the verge of bankruptcy. Putin changed the constitution so that he could put in his own appointed mayors. They are not relaying the truth nor do they care about their constituents.
Another headline: 1000+ deaths linked to returning veterans.

Russian vloggers are starting to realise what's going on:

Yes ok, but Russia already tried they nice tools like the ''terminator MBT'' and it failed, attacked a lot of trees and then got hit by a rpg or howitzer, they also brought one ''armata'' to the battle field be to where afraid to put it in a position where it would be useful and then it mysteriously got pulled out, perhaps it had a other breakdown, like it did on the parade, when they presented it.

They haven't got any nice tools in the shed. They would have got them put by now. They have plenty of rusty tools in the shed. There's something wrong when a super power buys agricultural ('golf carts') for carrying troops and you take out 1950's tanks from museums for deployment. Putin wants nothing more than to defeat Ukraine and if he had any shiny tools, he would be using them.

 

[Pblakeney]

All these border nations are arming themselves to the teeth (and preparing).. Does Putin really think that with his very diminished personnel he can invade Europe... on foot and in cardboard tank cut outs?

I suspect that Putin is preaching to Donnie more than anyone else. He wants to keep up the pretence of "having all the cards".

 

[Pinno718]

I suspect that Putin is preaching to Donnie more than anyone else. He wants to keep up the pretence of "having all the cards".

That and trying to threaten Europe. It's bluff. It's transparent. It's hollow.

 

[Pinno718]

Le Monde:

Zelensky says Ukrainian army has retaken Kupiansk​

President Volodymyr Zelensky filmed himself near the front line to show that his army was capable of mounting a counteroffensive. Ukraine retaking control of the city of Kupiansk would represent its only successful counteroffensive in 2025.

It's a start.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I suspect that Putin is preaching to Donnie more than anyone else. He wants to keep up the pretence of "having all the cards".

I think Trump was trying to force Zelensky in a quick peacedeal so the news would dominate that now and in the coming period, because he doesn't look to clean in a certain something called ''the epstein files'' but now that failed he probably will come up with something else.

 

[Pross]

Did I miss a competition on who could do the longest post with the most quotes?

 

[briantrumpet]

Did I miss a competition on who could do the longest post with the most quotes?

Just disappointed that we haven't got full Harvard referencing & footnotes.