Slightly OT but when we have an expert in our midst, I'm going to take the opportunity to ask the question... you mention that history is littered with instances of tanks being lost to things that, on paper, shouldn't have been a threat... would such a thing as the "sticky bomb" from Saving Private Ryan (a sock covered in grease and filled with plastic explosive) work? And are there any known instances of it in real life? I'm aware of the British anti-tank S.T. grenade working on the same principle but the simplicity of the improvised weapon in the film always made me curious about it's potential real-world usage!
Did everyone invade Ukraine illegally, or just Russia?
Did everyone start murdering and raping Ukrainian citizens, including children, or just Russia?
Europe has done pretty well getting off their resources in the last year. After that, economically, it's just another country with a GDP about the size of Italy's
Simple answer is 'No', it reads like something from a not very believable novel.
Well I'm going to explain to you what others already expect you to know.
You have been snookered, a few naked questions have exposed the tiny glitch deep in your psyche that causes you to know you should be ashamed of your true position.
No harm that it really aids the case for the transition to green energy too!
If it was just an 'Italy-sized economy' that would be manageable, maybe. But it's an 'Italy-sized economy with the ability to project conventional and nuclear forces. And that also engages in hybrid warfare, such as cybercrime and election sabotage'.
That's not the angle I'm coming from though, one needs to suspend disbelief to consider the decision making process.
That remaining 10% could still end human civilisation on earth as we know it. So still 'no'.
I get the angle but it's purely hypothetical. So it's a fun little debate for sure, but its a conjecture that will never occur in reality.
Even Joffrey is on Ukraine's side
There is a difference between seizing and freezing. If I freeze your bank account I merely prevent you from accessing the funds. I can unfreeze it at a later date. Seizing it mean I just take your money and leave you out of pocket.
What about his estimation of the number of dead civilians being 250 thousand? Would you consider that accurate?
Don't you not think the EU can't not illlegally seize those assets?
Nobody asked you about your 'feelings'. This is a discussion thread for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That you are unable to discuss it speaks volumes.
So then we're fully justified to take it that you support the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, that you support the atrocities it has carried out in that invasion, the executions of civilians by Russian forces eg at Bucha, the indiscriminate use of heavy weapons in civilians areas eg Mariupol and the deliberate targeting of civilian buildings eg in Kyiv. Your silence on these crimes is your agreement with them.
This 'take' is founded upon your refusal to condemn them or take a moral position on them.
A lot of these instances happened in Urban situation where mobility is severely reduced. I used to read/see the Victor comic when I was young of soldiers climbing onto a tank to take it out with a grenade down the hatch. Now this might have happened one or two times in the whole of WW2
It was only as you get older you realize it's fairly hard to climb onto a tank, virtually impossible to climb onto one doing 10+ miles an hour and even if you did the f@@king hatch would be locked from underneath and someone inside would shoot you out through one of the vents. Probably more effective to shoot an automatic weapon through the vent or sight opening.
During WW2 the Russians had some success with Molotov cocktail's, basically petrol bombs. But in general tanks even old ones are fairly hard to knock out if moving fast except with specific anti tank munitions
I agree somewhat - all these regimes are repulsive.
But let me give you a somewhat contrarian take; isolating them has not made them any less belligerent or forced regime change. Ultimately we want, if not for us then at least for the poor populations of these countries, them to engage with us and become better global citizens. Isolation doesn't work.
Post Cold War engagement didn't work with Russia though did it. How well it is working with China is also dubious.
Sometimes all you can do is put them in a box so reduce their ability to harm.
But to extend the box metaphor (😎), sometimes you don't have a big enough box.
You never know, Western systems (detection, targeting) may advance further and Russian ones (detection, protection) may decline.
Unfortunately, neither does engagement. The world tried that with Russia post '91. It didn't work out too well. Engagement only works when there is a counterpart on the other side who is willing to engage, which we do not have in any of the three countries mentioned. For the same reason, any treaties agreed to with these countries will likely have a very short shelf life before they're broken on some gossamer-thin pretext. As long as a country, or its leadership, believes it has an axe to grind, any type of rational policy towards that country will fail.
It's a hard task you've set yourself there. One would be dealing with neutralizing land based ballistic missiles (both mobile and static), submarine based missiles, cruise missiles, plus bomber launched weapons. Not to mention all the tactical nukes too. But if you're only talking about strategic warheads, that leaves around 150 if your plan works. Could still do a lot of damage with those. Would Putin use them? I honestly couldn't give you an answer.
I'll give you a counter-argument.
Romania was probably the 'worst' of the Warsaw Pact countries. Communism collapsed, the West engaged and now Romania, while it still has some problems and is still playing catchup, is a fully fledged EU member.
That would have been unthinkable in, say, 1985.
Why not be an optimist? Aim for a prosperous, democratic Russia - that is a member of the EU. That seems impossible in the context of today but we know from history that these transitions can, and do, happen. Look at (West) Germany in 1945 vs 1965.
Engagement, in the long term, beats Isolation. Although the latter may be necessary in the short term.
Its a wonder you didn't just hit his "Thanks" button - Thanking every Putinbot and Russian sympathiser that's raised their ugly heads in here seems to be the sum of you total contributions to the ongoing debate here for weeks.
Would you like to tell us where YOU stand with this russian invasion of Ukraine ?
The rest of the world fully engaged with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union - 30 years. And this is where it's ended up.
Hopefully they'll get their act together and start behaving like a normal country that everyone else can do business with, and wouldn't it be great if that was sooner rather than later, but until then - and especially while they're illegally attempting to annex a neighbouring country - they can stay out in the cold, and the ball is in their court to change that.
It should also be pointed out that engagement with both Romania and Germany that you speak of only came about after the liquidation of their despotic head of state and the total collapse of their system of government (and in Germany's case, its total defeat in war). Are you happy to have those conditions met for Russia also?
I'm not sure I'd agree. Sports boycotts, economic sanctions and political isolation did force a change in government in South Africa. It took a while though.
Like I said before there is no onus or obligation on me to state whether I support or condemn anything. You can take it however way you choose.
The German despot self-liquidated. 😉
But what you are really talking about are inflection points in history. We should be looking to see what the inflection point is that could tip Russia towards a better future.
Totally agree when it comes to conflicts, if only by proxy, between its members, although I think to myself that when the security council was formed in 1945, it may have ostensibly been about ensuring a new peaceful world, but was really about shoring up the emerging world order more than anything. And events like Russia getting the bomb and the rise of proxy warfare changed the calculus as well.
Good catch.
Hasn't worked in Cuba though.
Honestly it was the lack of supporting infantry anywhere near by that I was surprised by ,
you may only have one operational tank in the platoon ( not ideal )
Mind you the dismounts could be miles back , and the chances are an enemy squad would have something that could feic up a bmp (or anything even less armoured) and it's passengers ,
Probably one of our main weapons in nudging Russia towards an inflection point is...information. It could well be argued that information was one of the main causes of the fall of Communism
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23cbe5e5e50cebb31e4a86160a77c62d.svg)
