UK giving warships to Ukraine.

I wonder who our hapless government will back when Serbia and Kosovo kick off another war? >:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

Neither am I, if NATO took it seriously, it would all be over bar the shouting within a week.

---

NATO are not getting involved Sinkov because they know they would get beat and badly beaten.The Ukrainian army has over 240.000 active personell all trained to NATO standard.The Yanks and Brits have been training them for the last eight years.They have a further 300.000 reservists.They are getting beat by 150-190.000 Russians.Russia has an active military 0f 1.050.000 men with 2.000.000 reserves.
NATO does not have the manpower, the industrial base nor logisitics to compete with Russia in Ukraine.They would get annihalated just like the Ukrainians are getting annihilated becuase they would run out of ammunition in 2 months.That is not me talking but a British military think tank.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-res...strial-warfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

Neither am I, if NATO took it seriously, it would all be over bar the shouting within a week.

---

NATO are not getting involved Sinkov because they know they would get beat and badly beaten.The Ukrainian army has over 240.000 active personell all trained to NATO standard.The Yanks and Brits have been training them for the last eight years.They have a further 300.000 reservists.They are getting beat by 150-190.000 Russians.Russia has an active military 0f 1.050.000 men with 2.000.000 reserves.
NATO does not have the manpower, the industrial base nor logisitics to compete with Russia in Ukraine.They would get annihalated just like the Ukrainians are getting annihilated becuase they would run out of ammunition in 2 months.That is not me talking but a British military think tank.

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-res...strial-warfare

When I say NATO CiB, I mean the USA. If their military really wanted to, they could obliterate the Red Army virtually overnight, but they won't, they can't, because it would lead to a nuclear conflagration. All I am saying is, they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

When I say NATO CiB, I mean the USA. If their military really wanted to, they could obliterate the Red Army virtually overnight, but they won't, they can't, because it would lead to a nuclear conflagration. All I am saying is, they could.

---

The Yanks could not beat neither the Vietcong nor the Taliban sinkov, I think you underestimate the sheer expanse of the Russian Federation mon ami, never mind old chap, so did Adolf Hitler.

Who wants a "nuclear conflagration" anyway? :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bedlington Terrier

Who wants a "nuclear conflagration" anyway? :s

---

The Russians have also lost every war they've been in since WW2. Afghans absolutely pumped them.
But it's the "unseen war" that they lost big time. USSR dismantled, the West dominating the world economy, the expansion of NATO - all the reasons why Putin is desperate to try to rebuild the Russkyy Mir.

Lavrov has threatened nuclear strikes regularly. Russian State TV has frequently advocated nuclear war - and recently stated London would be first on the list. They talked about taking out the enemy satellites and how their nuclear defence system would remain intact.
As if.
TBH I watched discussions on Russian State TV about it and it seemed like the state puppets on show were oblivious to the risk or the fact that every major Russian city and town would be annihilated in minutes.
OK they were willy waving but that recklessness is the main reason the West won't put boots on the ground - basically because the West has most to lose and China most to gain if nuclear war broke out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wanderlust

The Russians have also lost every war they've been in since WW2. Afghans absolutely pumped them.
But it's the "unseen war" that they lost big time. USSR dismantled, the West dominating the world economy, the expansion of NATO - all the reasons why Putin is desperate to try to rebuild the Russkyy Mir.

Lavrov has threatened nuclear strikes regularly. Russian State TV has frequently advocated nuclear war - and recently stated London would be first on the list. They talked about taking out the enemy satellites and how their nuclear defence system would remain intact.
As if.
TBH I watched discussions on Russian State TV about it and it seemed like the state puppets on show were oblivious to the risk or the fact that every major Russian city and town would be annihilated in minutes.
OK they were willy waving but that recklessness is the main reason the West won't put boots on the ground - basically because the West has most to lose and China most to gain if nuclear war broke out.

---

They have hypersonic weapons Wander-they have the upper hand.Just one launched from Russia would reach the UK in 4-5 minutes and no defence can stop it.8 warheads per missile.That is enough for the entire UK.The West is playing catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sinkov

When I say NATO CiB, I mean the USA. If their military really wanted to, they could obliterate the Red Army virtually overnight, but they won't, they can't, because it would lead to a nuclear conflagration. All I am saying is, they could.

---

You mean the same army that was forced to flee Afghanistan in the middle of the night by men in flip flops and kakashikovs?
The reason they are not going into Ukraine officially(Their are NATO personell on the ground instructing the Ukrainians and contractors fighting with the Ukrainians)is 1.Because they know they would lose. 2 It could lead to a nuclear confrontation in which case Russia again has the upper hand.3.The aim of this proxy war was to weaken Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives but Russia is stronger than ever whilst the West is collapsing economically.