Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

1299930003002300430053690

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    What does a "high-tech" war delivered by NATO look like exactly?

    We're seeing as good as live footage of this war thanks to social media, we get to see all the flaws of both sides. I've yet to see NATO at war with a force this size and under the same scrutiny, so I wouldn't be quick to jump to a wipe out conclusion.

    I don't think bolstering conventional weaponry is a bad idea considering the backfill that is needed anyway and the fact that it even poses a slight risk not doing so. If NATO does ever engage in direct conflict with Russia it will increase the chances of involvment from others.

    I think no matter how smart a side can be in a war like that, this grinding warfare will always be the end result. Eggshells that have to be walked on will stop either side from delivering the blows that count until there is no other choice.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,200 ✭✭✭Addmagnet


    There truly are an infinite number of Universes - never thought I'd end up being in one where I agree with Piers Morgan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,058 ✭✭✭✭briany


    All war is stupid, yes.

    Ordinary Ukrainians are dying for no good reason, yes.

    Conclusion: Russia should leave Ukraine.


    As I don't follow the tWitterings of Mick Wallace, I have to wonder if he's ever said out loud what he appears to really think, which is that he agrees with, and supports, Russia's decision to invade Ukraine? He seems to get so close on everything I see posted here, 'US-NATO agenda' being a classic.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    So coming back to the original point, the EU isnt just mindlessly dithering about whether to spend money on artillery shells or on more luxury items as the propaganda would have it. They are dithering on the issue of whether to build up large scale production lines of the less important weapons or whether to focus on the high tech stuff. Like air defense as you mention. Clearly, rational choices to prefer the high tech stuff are being made.

    And while NATO isnt a single army, they a) use standardised equipment and practise interoperability and b) all seem to have come to the same conclusion that manufacturing millions of shells to blast Russia (or whoever) in a future war is not a pressing requirement, even while accepting that it is what Ukraine wants



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,025 ✭✭✭jmreire


    I can assure you that the noise is a whole lot worse when they start landing near you.... especially if its mere meter's away. The noise is shocking in fact. And another shock to the system is when Blackhawks are shooting nearby. Customed by movies like "Blackhawk Down" and the noise's they made in that film, the real noise level comes as quite a shock.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    What does a "high-tech" war delivered by NATO look like exactly?

    To the outside viewer probably like the same kind of war. NATO is to my knowledge, big on common communication protocols, so that eg. if a squadron of F-35s is operating ahead of a squadron of Eurofighters picks up targets on their radars etc. they can feed that data to the 'data swarm' and the command structure will know and the Eurofighters will know where those targets are located. The military doctrine is for high interoperability of battlefield situational information, at least as far as I understand it. Of course NATO didn't form out of a single military so it was natural for eg. german french and american platforms to speak different languages in a sense, be engineered differently under different progeny, but when they were looking at the Joint Strike Fighter Program in the late late 80s/early 90s part of that review was to homogenize those systems (not just for the F35 but all of NATO) because in effect, communication between forces was firewalled between the technological distinctions between them, impeding the speed and effectiveness of battlefield communication. It's unclear how much operational intelligence, direct or otherwise, NATO is providing the the Ukrainian command structure. But they do seem to keep pantsing the Russians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭200mg


    I would be looking into who paid for some vineyards or what ever they were. 🤐



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 614 ✭✭✭slipperyox


    Just had a thought.

    Ukraine used to have nukes.

    Then they gave them back to russia, (budapest agreement) on basis they were not attacked by russia.

    Clearly russia broke this.

    What if?

    Ukraine "found" 3 or 4 nukes that were not returned at the time of this?

    This would be a game changer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That wouldn't be a situation I'd want to find out about in a mexican standoff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    next "question"

    That's usually something the person who was asked the question gets to say and why so defensive in the first place, it's like you're taking what I said as a personal attack?

    The question asked was what a "high-tech" war with NATO looks like, what the Russians claim wasn't brought up by anyone but you and all you're doing is derailing things with your obsessive take.

    It was a fair question and point made, stop looking for your own little battles.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    No doubt they're the most advanced in every aspect but I still think it premature to write off the need for conventional capacity building. That is gambling and hoping for the best case scenario.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    No it wouldn't change a thing,

    Even if they found a few nukes just laying around, try threatening Russia with several nukes first they would have to show they are willing and able to use them but on the other side of the coin Russia has thousands of nukes who's going to win that particular game ,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭SortingYouOut


    Context is important here. This entire conversation started over a hypothetical war between Russia and NATO, with NATO engaging directly. You're referring to the real war between Ukraine and Russia, where NATO members are supporting indirectly.

    There was no inventing here... it was just a response to a poster and the entire point was the hypothetical.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,135 ✭✭✭Jinglejangle69


    Lancets are obliterating Ukrainian equipment at the moment.


    War has changed, €20,000 Drones destroying millions of equipment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,089 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,089 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    I watch both the Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels.

    Both sides are making heavy use of suicide drones to good effect. Anything that's within a few km of the frontline is spotted and destroyed. There are plenty of incidents of even t72 tanks being completely destroyed by such attacks.

    I get the feeling that this war will be won or lost be whoever has the resources to overwhelm the others in this sort of attack.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,536 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    Have you any proof that there aren't more than 210k Russian's dead?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,737 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    A fresh geopolitical video from yesterday




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭200mg


    Inciteful so far love the traded for alcohol. Says all you need to know really Especially in an Army.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,089 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,089 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    I do actually.

    The BBC have 25k confirmed dead, based on graves by independent sources in Russia.

    I have read comments that they think the real number is undercounted.

    They think the actual number of dead is 50k.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,089 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭200mg


    210k killed, wounded, Out of action. conservative 50-60k killed prob higher if you put in sledgehammer lads. Out of action I would say is huge lost arm or leg. Wounded again big enough. Is the doctrine still the same for 1 man down 2-3 go get them back to treatment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 287 ✭✭dennis72


    Then you add chechens,dnr and the forced conscripted in occupied territories.

    It's a dam hard slog without air support and beening drip fed weapons to fight a larger force that isn't running away and ka52 attack helicopters who are able to pick off minefield creeping armour

    I hope they can break through Russia will do everything to delay their advance.

    Don't see it ending soon

    Post edited by dennis72 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,684 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    WRT the FT link about confiscating oligarch funds... A law is one thing (both houses must sign off and POTUS sign off), but once confiscation starts to occur, expect lots of lawsuits, probably going up to the SCOTUS because of the money involved. I'm interested in the legal justification for the confiscation of funds, which is what the new law will be about.

    Plus the eye-watering sums will attract lawyers, probably good ones, not the flotsam we've seen floating around TiFG lately.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,574 ✭✭✭rogber


    That was a very interesting article, also about the profile of the average soldier killed, from young professional soldiers a year ago to aged 30+ ex-criminals now.

    Of course I'm sure some here will claim the BBC is a Pro Putin far left organisation and its journalism is far less reliable than what some random sensationalist on Twitter claims ....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,025 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Capable of change.......the one thing that dictatorships are not amenable to, and actively work to prevent. Kim Sung, Iran's Ayatollah, China's Xi, and of course Putin. None of the above mentioned are capable of willingly changing the status quo, and thousands of people who thought or tried to bring change paid for it with either their Freedom or Lives.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 938 ✭✭✭wildefalcon


    General Franco managed it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭pcardin


    This should be attached to that Twatter post between Homeless Mick and P.Morgan



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement