Ken
-
Posts
2213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Ken
-
-
The vast majority of that 40 mile convoy are supposedly re-supply vehicles.
-
4 minutes ago, Tom said:
How many 5th generation fighters do Russia actually have? I can’t see it being too many.
Not many. Not that I believe what Wikipedia says but 14 and 10 are prototypes. Who knows...
-
2 minutes ago, Toonpack said:
Won't happen, that would make Polish airfields a legitimate target for Putin's Luftwaffe
I agree and made that point.
-
3 minutes ago, Tom said:
Yeh Mig-29s. I’m not sure what the Russians are flying but they don’t seem great either.
The Russians haven't brought in their fifth generation fighters into play yet.
The same with their standing army they have largely been conscripts and from the East.
They have held back their strongest assets and I don't know why.
-
Sorry I don't have a subscription.
Yeah old tech but at least it is something that can be considered air support if only for 1 mission only
-
4 minutes ago, ewerk said:
What planes are they acquiring?
From Poland, Bulgaria and 2 other countries.
-
1 minute ago, Tom said:
They really shouldn’t be allowed.
That’ll count as NATO aggression.
I agree that by Poland getting involved directly like this has repercussions for that country. It allows Russia an excuse to go after Poland and the conflict inflames even more and may force NATO's hand. Very dangerous.
-
2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:
yes, i looks grim. i don't get why putin would want to turn kiev into aleppo. this is a city he wants to occupy
Putin doesn't care for minimising damage and destruction. The first days of this campaign has embarrassed him. He clearly sees red now and will impose his will whatever the cost.
-
1
-
-
Not sure if this is accurate but I have read that Poland are going to allow Ukraine to use their airfields with the planes they are acquiring. The stakes are going up.
-
44 minutes ago, Rayvin said:
This 40 mile long Russian tank convoy is concerning me I have to say. Are we about to see Russia "get serious"?
We've had quite a bit to celebrate in recent days with how well Ukraine has resisted occupation, but it could return to being very grim very quickly if Putin wants it.
Fuck this whole thing, seriously.
Its more than concerning. They are heading to Kiev for one reason only, and that's to take the city. A lot of destruction ahead and I fear the city will be razed to the ground.
-
The only thing you would need to worry about is rise in costs for petrol and energy bills.
-
7 hours ago, Renton said:
NATO's defensive mate. Like Ukraine, feet are already on the ground. I'm most worried about nuclear war. You worry about China, but I'm sure you'll be okay.
Ukrainians are showing themselves to be strong. Putin would've thought this was going to be quick campaign.
Putin is a madman but using nuclear weapons would ensure his country would be obliterated, so I think you are fine.
We will agree to disagree on China. They are a menace and a threat to world order and rule of law. They are challenging it. While nations are imposing sanctions on Russia, China are lifting theirs and importing wheat. They are in each other's pockets wanting to change the status quo.
-
32 minutes ago, Renton said:
Shit farter?
Did you think that up on the thunderbox whilst blasting out last night's Shiraz, by any chance?
NATO is a North Atlantic group, obviously. Whilst the US has Pacific concerns,.it's a not that stupid to think that Europe is not also an important issue, especially after this week. It should be the biggest concern for every country in the world, even yours
Europe has a huge population, with literally millions of soldiers (3.2 million in NATO, mostly European). UK has more than 150k troops alone. There are UK soldiers in all the Eastern member States currently. We wouldn't need US boots on the ground, although they would supply overwhelming air defence and intelligence. Russia are no conventional threat to us at all. China aren't a really a conventional threat to the US either. But nuclear weapons change things.
I still don't really get what your point is. You admit NATO has been effective to until now, but are speculating about its failing in the future? Why? What are you getting at?
Err no. You have mentioned previously that sometimes you cannot control your bowels due to an ailment hence the term shit farter.
Of course I agree Europe is an important issue and the reason for NATO's formation was largely because of the threat of Russia. I am not oblivious to this.
NATO are superior by way of technological warfare be it precision bombs, and missiles guided in via GPS . Russia has troops and tanks though. That's my concern here.
You are completely ignorant on the China threat. You have no idea about that all.
My concern with NATO is troops on the ground. Yes they have superiority with weapons systems but battalion to battalion engagement - can NATO deal with that scenario
-
Dont know what this means aside from stepping aside from day to day operations.
He may be looking to sell?
-
-
6 hours ago, Renton said:
You asked "Is NATO effective?" which I assumed was a rhetorical question implying it isn't. Otherwise its a question a 5 year old wouldn't need to ask.
Toonpack has answered your question about troops. NATO is an alliance, it's not hard to grasp.
It is a question that is yet to be determined you shit farter. The alliance is reliant on America. America will not go all in in Europe. China is the adversary that they view as a threat to their own dominance. Not Russia.
In the advent of war within NATO territory I am still yet to be convinced who will supply troops that can defend and repel 150,000 enemy.
-
-
-
-
16 minutes ago, Renton said:
How is NATO ineffective?
Where did I state that? I am questioning NATO'S ability to put troops on the ground in the event of an invasion on a member state. Who provides the troops?
-
32 minutes ago, Renton said:
I'll answer your strange question. It is so far 100% effective. Nobody has yet tried to invade a NATO country. The people of the countries of NATO supplies the troops for NATO. This is pretty basic stuff Ken.
So let's go further. If Russia choose to invade a NATO country, who provides the troops to defend and repel this?
-
Is NATO effective? Who supplies the troops on ground?
Genuine question.
-
6 hours ago, Renton said:
This is the thing with the EU, every country has their own needs so blanket sanctions are hard to agree. On the other hand, without any co-ordination between the 27 countries I suspect things would be much worse.
Yep. NATO is fundamentally useless.
-
2 minutes ago, Gemmill said:
The world could do with cutting its carb intake. This could be the making of us.
Vegan is a big thing
Vladimir Putin and Russia
in General Chat
Posted
Could only happen from the inside. Oligarchs universally turn on him and it filters down from there