Ukraine

[Guest milne_afc]

Couple of tactical nukes and we’re back on top. Get Canada fucked too.

[manboobs109]

Be as well using the nukes, pointless having them otherwise. It'll shut up all yer "what's the point in renewing trident" lot as well.

[Ke1t]

I came up with the solution to this 'crisis' in about 5 minutes. 

Everyone gets what they (say they) want, no fechtin' required, and the world is a safer place, thanks to me. 

You're welcome. 

 

[Ke1t]

4 minutes ago, Bad_Mobby said:

Or Aliens blow us up 

 

[RedArmyFakshun]

4 hours ago, Redforever86 said:

What makes you think the Russians would win a land war and what is your definition of it? 

No advanced nations have had a proper war for decades. I’d hate to see the carnage if one kicked off. 

You'd have to define what constitutes winning or losing

Russia would not lose any land war that is connects to its borders

But they might not win, either

[Ke1t]

Presumably Russia would be aiming for a political victory akin to the Soviet-era strategy, rather than posing in front of the Eiffel Tower like Hitler did back in the day. 

If NATO were prepared for a Russian attack there's no fucking way in Hell Russia's winning a conventional war against the West.  Their best bet would be a surprise attack, pushing as fast as they could towards whatever their limited objectives were, then suing for peace from a position of strength. 

As usual, NATO's being a collection of stupid, weak cunts, though... and instead of convoying US divisions into Eastern Europe we're facing down several Russian armies by threatening sanctions. 

That'll scare the Russkies. 

??

[RedArmyFakshun]

7 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Their best bet would be a surprise attack, pushing as fast as they could towards whatever their limited objectives were

Sweating like a rapist all the way to the sea ports of Albania

[1983]

Does this mean we might have to play Russia instead at the World Cup play-offs in March? 

[NEM]

5 minutes ago, 1983 said:

Does this mean we might have to play Russia instead at the World Cup play-offs in March? 

Nah they can play Poland as drawn, we get a bye cause Ukraine been wiped off the map

[RedArmyFakshun]

defence budgets bolstered,  and arms shareholders get a fresh grab of the public purse

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-of-england-has-up-to-ps10m-invested-in-arms-firm-8803469.html

fucking shameless

 

[Poodler]

10 hours ago, RedArmyFakshun said:

defence budgets bolstered,  and arms shareholders get a fresh grab of the public purse

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/church-of-england-has-up-to-ps10m-invested-in-arms-firm-8803469.html

fucking shameless

 

The CoE probably do want a war in Russia as they’re probably all catholics aren’t they? 

[maryhilldon]

30 minutes ago, Poodler said:

The CoE probably do want a war in Russia as they’re probably all catholics aren’t they? 

Russian Orthodox.

[Poodler]

Sounds Jewish 

 

Send in nigger and the boys 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/27/2022 at 9:03 AM, Parklife said:

Why do you believe that? 

Further to all the previous reasons given, he just cant stop making trouble for himself:

(1) he made a commitment to appoint "the first black woman scotus judge" - ie pure tokenism, not selecting the best available.

Trouble is, 76% of Americans want him to consider all possible nominees not pick someone based on their sex and colour.

(2) The Ukrainian president has now blamed the US for stoking panic about a russian invasion, saying the situation of russian troops on the border is just "same old, same old".

Maybe the biden regime is trying to use the situation as a distraction from his presidency?

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

On 1/27/2022 at 3:17 PM, Redforever86 said:

What makes you think the Russians would win a land war and what is your definition of it? 

No advanced nations have had a proper war for decades. I’d hate to see the carnage if one kicked off. 

A war on land - involving air forces, but with little or no involvement from navies (the US would hammer the russians at sea).

They would win for several reasons:

(i) because of the size of their army and the size of their military inventory.  (They are well set up for a conventional war of attrition, which is what wars involving the russians often turn into.)

Their stuff is not all space age technology, but it doesnt need to be.  It just needs to be effective and reliable, which is generally is.  Look at the UK's stuff - the Warrior IFV cannot even move and fire at the same time, lacking a stabilised gun.  Shite.

(ii) russians are tough and can tolerate casualties and attrition.  the modern west is soft and can not tolerate these things.

Plus, taking land and beating NATO would impress the Russians and make them admire Putin even more.  Conversely, western populations get all pissy if their nations are involved in conflict.

(iii) their army is a proper army, focused on killing. Western armies are more interested in ensuring the there are enough women in the special forces, and that non binary trans people are adequately represented among high command.

(iv) the remoteness of the bulk of the US military and the fact that the european NATO countries involved would all be seeking to look after themselves (esp the likes of the cowardly French, and the Germans who rely on Russian gas and who don't want their whole country fucked like the last time they fought the Russians).

US air power would be NATOs ace card, but its precisely for this reason that the Soviets and now the Russians made sure to develop the best anti-aircraft defence systems in the world: especially the S-300 / S-400 / S-500 missile systems.

(v) NATO countries all have different equipment and weapons, although in theory they all use the same interchangeable ammunition, armour, fuel etc due to STANAG agreements.  The robustness of this system has never been tested however and so I would expect the Russians would have a logistical advantage.

NATO always accepted the Soviet Union would win a conventional fight in the cold war.  In 2021, war games and analysis determined that NATO would struggle to stop Russian occupying the Baltic states if it wanted.  NATO strategy has always been to prevent conflict by offering the threat of escalation (to nuclear war), meaning any success would become too costly for the russians.  But would they be willing to go that far for far off Ukraine?

[Redforever86]

15 hours ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

A war on land - involving air forces, but with little or no involvement from navies (the US would hammer the russians at sea).

They would win for several reasons:

(i) because of the size of their army and the size of their military inventory.  (They are well set up for a conventional war of attrition, which is what wars involving the russians often turn into.)

Their stuff is not all space age technology, but it doesnt need to be.  It just needs to be effective and reliable, which is generally is.  Look at the UK's stuff - the Warrior IFV cannot even move and fire at the same time, lacking a stabilised gun.  Shite.

(ii) russians are tough and can tolerate casualties and attrition.  the modern west is soft and can not tolerate these things.

Plus, taking land and beating NATO would impress the Russians and make them admire Putin even more.  Conversely, western populations get all pissy if their nations are involved in conflict.

(iii) their army is a proper army, focused on killing. Western armies are more interested in ensuring the there are enough women in the special forces, and that non binary trans people are adequately represented among high command.

(iv) the remoteness of the bulk of the US military and the fact that the european NATO countries involved would all be seeking to look after themselves (esp the likes of the cowardly French, and the Germans who rely on Russian gas and who don't want their whole country fucked like the last time they fought the Russians).

US air power would be NATOs ace card, but its precisely for this reason that the Soviets and now the Russians made sure to develop the best anti-aircraft defence systems in the world: especially the S-300 / S-400 / S-500 missile systems.

(v) NATO countries all have different equipment and weapons, although in theory they all use the same interchangeable ammunition, armour, fuel etc due to STANAG agreements.  The robustness of this system has never been tested however and so I would expect the Russians would have a logistical advantage.

NATO always accepted the Soviet Union would win a conventional fight in the cold war.  In 2021, war games and analysis determined that NATO would struggle to stop Russian occupying the Baltic states if it wanted.  NATO strategy has always been to prevent conflict by offering the threat of escalation (to nuclear war), meaning any success would become too costly for the russians.  But would they be willing to go that far for far off Ukraine?

Load of shite if the Russians were so confident they'd have done it by now. I think they'd win a land war in Ukraine because let's face it we don't give a fuck about them and as you said the EU rely on Russia for gas. But if they went for the Baltic or any Nato country they'd be fucked. Unless they get the Aliens on their side. 

[NEM]

1 hour ago, Redforever86 said:

Load of shite if the Russians were so confident they'd have done it by now. I think they'd win a land war in Ukraine because let's face it we don't give a fuck about them and as you said the EU rely on Russia for gas. But if they went for the Baltic or any Nato country they'd be fucked. Unless they get the Aliens on their side. 

Or the chinks. Then it'd get tasty

[Ke1t]

5 hours ago, Redforever86 said:

Load of shite if the Russians were so confident they'd have done it by now. I think they'd win a land war in Ukraine because let's face it we don't give a fuck about them and as you said the EU rely on Russia for gas. But if they went for the Baltic or any Nato country they'd be fucked. Unless they get the Aliens on their side. 

Correct.

[Ten Caat]

18 hours ago, NEM said:

Or the chinks. Then it'd get tasty

If the Russians do go into Ukraine and are seen to get away with it other than some token economic sanctions, I don't think it'll be too long before China go and take Taiwan back. That might elicit a bit more of a response from the Americans as no doubt an emboldened China might then target the islands under Japanese control at present that China insists belong to it

[Redforever86]

11 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

If the Russians do go into Ukraine and are seen to get away with it other than some token economic sanctions, I don't think it'll be too long before China go and take Taiwan back. That might elicit a bit more of a response from the Americans as no doubt an emboldened China might then target the islands under Japanese control at present that China insists belong to it

The Chinese are the good cunts compared to Japan if you look at the history. Not sure why we take the Japs side considering history as recently as WW2. 
 

Probably because the yanks have military bases there and want to be able to exert as much power in the pacific as possible. 

[Ke1t]

Putin's gone running to his big brother in China because NATO won't let him play. 

NATO needs to start deploying more troops and weapons than Putin in Europe, and just tell him we're ready for a punch up any time he likes. He doesn't get to tell the West what it can do. 

Cunt of a dwarf of a man. 

[Ke1t]

57 minutes ago, Grays Babylon 1875 said:

I mean, what kind of ferret faced little cunt invades Ukraine...?

It looks spectacularly shite there.   Even worse than Wales.

Everything cold and made of hellish concrete.    The kinda place where you'll find your granny dead if she forgot to wear her parka and gloves when she went to the next room for a shite.

They won't be at the World Cup with the sexy people.

 

True story, spent some time in Russia, a month or so, travelling from Volgograd (Stalingrad), Moscow, up to St Petes (Leningrad)... and one thing that was uniform north to south, was the shitness of the place. Even Moscow, with its legion of feechies, packs of wild dogs, and what looked suspiciously like a crumbling nuclear reactor, was the shittiest capital city I've ever seen. 

Was doing the whole touristy thing when I wasn't fighting with cunts in uniforms, and was taking pictures of a soviet era apartment block, run down and abandoned, took a couple of pictures in the main hall, then let myself into one of the abandoned apartments... which wasn't abandoned at all. People were sitting at the table having some munchies... in what, I guess, was a run down but not abandoned apartment block. 

It was cool as fuck looking, but in the way an abandoned factory is cool as fuck looking, not in a that's cool as fuck and I'd like to live there kind of a way. 

I just found a picture of the hallway a few days ago, coincidentally. Like something out of Blade Runner or Gorky Park... 

[BrianFaePerth]

On the plus side, they export some hot women

[Jigsaw666]

12 hours ago, BrianFaePerth said:

On the plus side, they export some hot women

Often found being dragged by the hair through the car park by their pimp.

[Redforever86]

29 minutes ago, Grays Babylon 1875 said:

Nice one Macron ( good with cheese )

 

 

I don’t come on here to watch the fucking BBC news, tell us about shagging fat black  pop stars or at least an interesting take on the shit petrol stations and swamps of the jungle.

[BrianFaePerth]

Eh reckon Vlad will invade during the super bowl, maybe even the half-time show. 

[Ke1t]

Putin saying he's removing some units from the border. 

Everyone with a satellite pointing at the border says, "Naw yer naw." 

 

[RedArmyFakshun]

This just in from the President of El Salvador

[chief_wiggum]

Here's a song for Putin (incase he's a regular lurker on here ?)

 

 

[The Boofon]

On 2/13/2022 at 3:47 AM, BrianFaePerth said:

Eh reckon Vlad will invade during the super bowl, maybe even the half-time show. 

Wrong again you useless cunt. 
 

? for Brian. Beep beep.