What your actually saying is your afraid to say anything other the the usual so that you don't end up on the end of a I told you so .
So what happens if ukraine doesn't make any gains then What,
This is what your been asked but all you can reply is orc propaganda, which suggests that you have limited knowledge of the actual situation in ukraine and Ukraine in 12 months time
The Ukrainians are at liberty to refuse to accept the surrender of Wagner troops in retaliation, as being mercenaries, they are fair game.
No they're not, at least not legally.
Everyones favorite US putin agent fox news host tucker Carlson just got sacked
I already posted a BBC article where Biden is quaoted as saying the US would intervene - do keep up.
Speaking of keeping up, you claimed only poor uneducated people are fighting for Ukraine and that all the talent left.
and
Unfortunately we mostly get to hear about these heroes when they die.
6 day's to May for Bakhmut.
I seen a video that it's tying down huge number of Russian troops. Not just the city but the flanks they need to secure to stop a Ukrainian counter attack.
With the weather being bad Ukraine might need to keep them occupied here for another 4 to 6 week's to keep them occupied before a potential counter attack elsewhere.
No, your questions are easy to answer. If Ukraine don’t make much gains, and you get giddy… Ukraine will go again. Just checking, but you do realise their country has been invaded? Would you give up fighting if your country was invaded the likes of the Russians?
The Ukrainians were at their weakest at the start of this war and the Orcs were disgraced. Why do you think the Ukrainians have less resolve now from a stronger position. At best it’s defeatist.
Why would they get giddy if Ukraine don't make gains? This poster you're replying to is one of the most active on this thread and has been giddy only for Ukrainian gains to date.
I take my hat off to them as well for having the ability to look past their emotional want for Ukraine to win (same want as my own before you accuse anything different) and see what is front of them in a balanced way.
Supporting Ukraine and discussing their potential losses are not mutually exclusive, you can do both. You'd be mad not to consider all possibilities and purposely discarding real possible outcomes because you would rather hear otherwise is just silly.
Just checking, but you do realise their country has been invaded? Would you give up fighting if your country was invaded the likes of the Russians?
I'm sure they're well aware of that fact. You're well aware that countries have been invaded in the past and the people within have had to give up fighting eventually.
I'm not making any prediction or stating what way things will go, i'm just pointing out how your shutting down of this poster does nothing for the discussion. They are valid points being made.
interesting one today... RAF P-8 was training out of Aldergrove in the Irish Sea... was due to go elsewhere this afternoon but was kept on location the rest of the day for an active mission.
Some of it's tracks from the past 2 hours... this and further south was it's area of interest all afternoon.
undersea cables for ref (the ones we know of)
Russia started an unproked and unconscionable war in Europe, the worst since WW2. Why wouldn't it be banned? Mordor doesn't allow the EU to operate uncensored media outlets in their info sphere.
I'd say the concerns in private are very acute. The US has invested a lot of money and political capital and resources in to this. The Ukranians have a chance to get this right. The consequences of failure is hard to comprehend.
Everything needs to be right before going ahead.
It suits the west to publicly say this in case it all goes south anyway. Ukraine will take the blame if this doesn't succeed. That's the politics of it.
even if the counter offensive goes south (no pun intended).... I think concession of land with access to NATO, regardless of Russia's concerns is the minimum outcome currently...
obviously gaining everything back is best case.
There's no nato guarantee,one member says no ,you don't become a member just ask Sweden currently being denied membership by Erdogan and orban in Hungary will say no to Ukraine,
So they can give up land but they don't have a golden ticket that gives automatic membership to Nato
Under the Geneva Conventions, mercenaries are defined as fighters who are not part of the conventional armed forces and are considered "unlawful combatants" not afforded any protection.
Art. 47 of Protocol I
A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
With no right to be being treated as a prisoner of war and surrendering as such, that doesn't leave many options when you have a busy schedule.
You'd be doing well as a pilot not having an undersea cable below or near you flying over the Irish Sea in that area, would the subs be a risk there and are they the cables you would target to cause disruption? They don't seem to be a big bang for your buck, unless you're trying to slow down data transfer between Ireland and the UK, but I don't know a lot about this and could be wrong.
I never said automatic membership... fully aware of the ins and outs for accession to NATO currently... which I think may be getting a shakeup in the future due to the cracks that this whole situation have shown.
Doubt that will change either been how it was set up ,
The time for Nato membership was 20 years ago when it was first brought up along with Georgia,both now occupied by Russians in some form or another
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. China hasn't even 1/25th the capability of landing a force to take Taiwan. Any Chinese blockade would simply be ignored and any aggression would see the their fleets sunk.
Which if you concede land, is technically not occupied by Russian's.
Turkey and Hungary's "playing both sides" game is something that will be addressed by NATO, now is just not the time... if they do stay as full members, I see an expansion and review of potential security guarantees of the Partnership for peace program, which would see members of the program gaining more security guarantees, but not Article 5 level guarantees, but also outside the NATO sphere, which would appease Eastern block.
The largest navy in the world hasn't the ships to land a force on Taiwan.
🤣🤣🤣
No it doesn't it's well known. It's few aircraft carriers can only field short range aircraft.
China to Taiwan is around 100 miles ,they don't need to field long range aircraft
Saw this headline recently which might be relevant:
You missed the part where not everyone is in agreement.....
Go read some articles about Chinese amphibious landing capabilities before you mouth off again making yourself sound stupid. I'll make it easy for you, they've been posted here a few weeks ago.
Which account is this now
China lack heavy logistical maritime inventory and have memorandums of understanding with civil operators to use Ro-Ro and passenger ferries in any attempt on Taiwan.
It was demo'd in an exercise 2 or 3 years back.
edit:
further to this, any amphibious ship would be vulnerable in the Taiwan straight, and there's a window of about 3 months a year where the tide and weather is OK to use small landing craft... the American's usually park an aircraft carrier or landing ship the opposite side of the island during this window
Other than small beacheads and probing attacks, things are very, VERY quiet along the wars southern front. Lots of talks about UAF silence.....
April 30th was the date revealed in the leaks. Whether that will still be the date since the weather is still an issue I do not know.
If you're looking at degrading comms capability to the UK, then yes, those cables a very significant.
A Ukrainian medic talks about his job on the front line - quite honest and moving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeelZuwRxhY
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
