Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

1345834593461346334643690

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,208 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Agreed. This time, Russian empire building has to be finished for good, no matter what it takes. Best way would be that its destruction comes from within. But I'd imagine, that if that happens, you will see a big input from China...possible total taker over? Certainly, if the federation breaks up, China will reclaim all its former territories, for sure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,208 ✭✭✭jmreire


    An active EU army, while still supporting NATO, would not be bound by NATO rules of engagement, and could respond to whatever they perceive as a threat. Now if such a force had existed say 10, 5 or even 3 years ago, I doubt very much if Putin would have invaded Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,185 ✭✭✭Polar101


    But there's nothing preventing NATO member countries from responding right now. They just choose not to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Another one down.

    Russian transport plane Il-76 in the Belgorod region.



  • This content has been removed.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It might seem like time is not on Ukraine's side, but it's very easy to overestimate how strong Putin's position is, given the lack of openness on the Russian side.

    The Russian economy was very weak two years ago, has been hit by sanctions since and there have been many thousands of deaths and injuries in Ukraine. Russia is a police State, so dissent is very hard to gauge, but it is probably a matter of time until the regime implodes given the conditions. It may come suddenly, it nearly happened last summer.



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


    It's been claimed that there was 68 people killed in the crash apparently all Ukrainian POWs



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    What's happening with the Russian oligarchs these days?

    Are they taking a substantial hit to their businesses? Or have they found a way to make money out of the war effort?

    Do they still support the regime without question?

    What about our man down in Aughinish Alumina, that Russian oligarch and the plant there? Is it contributing to the war effort?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    It's also been claimed it was transporting S300 ammunition. Judging by the large explosion it could be true. You don't fly a 50 million transport plane for 60 prisoners.

    Both claims could be true and Russia might have used the Ukrainian prisoners as cover to easily transport S300 ammo.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 902 ✭✭✭vswr




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


    Yeah both could be true or both could be lies , the moment it went down it had missiles on it coming from Ukrainian sources and at the same time saying it was shot down by Ukrainians,



  • This content has been removed.


  • This content has been removed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 victorfranco


    Halliburton were charging the Pentagon $10 for a can of Coke for GIs during the Iraq War. Of course the Pentagon were passing on that cost to the US taxpayer. All part of the "defense budget"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 victorfranco


    "Who will stop them"?

    The British don't even have the codes to their own Poseidons and Polaris missiles. Do you think that Ukraine will just cobble together a nuclear bomb?

    Where are they going to test it? Where are they going to get the uranium, the technology to enrich said uranium?

    If America won't allow Japan or South Korea or Australia or even Canada or Mexico or all those countries like Estonia and Poland that are supposed to be attacked by Russia, to have nuclear weapons, why would they just let Ukraine have them?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Can we stop talking about nukes and get back to the war?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭rogber


    Far too slowly to be of any significance. Putin will be "voted" in for another term this spring, a few brave citizens will protest and be arrested, the other 100+ million will shrug and mope on as usual



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,208 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Sure, they are individually supplying weapons and support, what I mean is that a physical all EU army attack Russians in Ukraine. Hit them everywhere with maximum force in a well-planned attack, in a way that would overwhelm them in a very short time. And do it in such a way that it would destroy any more empire dreams that Russians might have for a very long time. And not only deter Russians, but any other Country that might be thinking of attacking the EU, NATO notwithstanding. The problem with NATO is that it only works for its members, a fact that Putin has exploited to the hilt.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,568 ✭✭✭RedXIV


    Can't see trump coming back successfully for round2. Yes there are certainly a diehard cohort that will vote him in, but a huge part of his success in the original election was people voting AGAINST Hilary Clinton. I've seen it in colleagues, friends and family over in the US, where they hated her so much they voted for Trump and are disgusted with what happened as a result. I think Biden, regardless of the inevitable dirt the media dig up on him, comes across as more of a moderate and palatable candidate that many would vote for happily on the democrat side



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,242 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Exactly, that's what they have to do when they are not given air support, limited artillery etc


    Needs must.


    Pity they aren't supported in driving Russia out and sad that that is what they have to do.


    Russia will be content to spend 18 months throwing some poor vatniks in old boots at them in their thousands.

    Even the red army learns lessons, they always start poorly and kill thousands of their own through indifference but their tactics have always improved over time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭macraignil


    "Prediction, Ukraine have one more offensive in it,"

    You have made this prediction before. I don't agree that Ukraine is happy to make the same mistake as putin and send thousands of their people to their deaths attacking prepared defensive lines. Ukraine has the committed support of the EU and NATO while putin has a heavily sanctioned economy limping along with the help of North Korea and Iran. putin is still able to make massively expensive attacks with most missiles his forces launch being intercepted and non military targets being hit at huge cost to his arms production capacity in urban areas in Ukraine but arms production in Ukraine is increasing and EU and NATO based arms producers are building up their capacities to make the weapons to deal with putin's terrorist state over the longer term. putin's war is only getting more expensive for him and unlike you I don't think time is on his side. The armed forces of Ukraine can just continue to make staying in their country a crippling expense for putin until he has no choice but to retreat.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Let's say Ukraine can put together another counter attack of similar size and this time with F16 support and cluster monitions from the start. What do you reckon they should attack? Last time around they took back a few km near Bakhmut and 2 seperate 10km breakthroughs down south.

    Put everything into one area down south to try get closer to the sea? At best they'll probably take another 15km or so and maybe reach the outskirts of Tokmak.

    Or should they pick areas that will ease their long term defense? So take back a few km north and south of Avdiivka, North of Kupyansk and around Bakhmut again.

    Personally I'm in 2 minds but if they are to attack again shortening the gap to the Azov sea could be more valuable long term even if it was only by 10km.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭rolling boh


    I would think another counter is unlikely unless they get much better fire power.I have no idea what the losses are for Ukraine but they must be big and it looks like with the way things have stalled somewhat that they need to be prepared for a couple of years at this rate.Dispite all the optimism that Putin will come undone all the line there is no real sign of that yet.



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


    F16s aren't going to change anything on the ground they already have an aircraft capable of doing the same job as the F16 yes they will likely have better Air2air weapons,the biggest now going forward in ammunition and men on the ground and were starting to hear the Russians are now going after the Ukrainian defence industry with attacks ,

    If they can go another large counter attack meltipol has to the the target and goal and nothing else if they take back meltipol they cut the Russians in two which means they cut off Kherson and Crimea that's the land bridge cut off ,but if they decide we're going to attack on the whole length of the front lines they risk making minor gains while suffering large losses, something they can Ill afford



  • This content has been removed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,181 ✭✭✭Field east


    I suggest that Biden pick for vice president is CRUCIAL to his strategy to get elected. IMO it should increase his vote significantly - especially amongst the undecided. WHY, because the current VP does not inspire , is very low profile and what has she done if anything to date. And along with that , if he picks someone that is fairly well known , is of presidential material , inspires confidence, good personality, etc then the voters for Biden counld do so on the basis of the high probality that his selection could become president if ‘ anything’ happens to Biden



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,185 ✭✭✭Polar101


    Yeah, if the Russians are saying the plane had POWs onboard, then it probably didn't. And what are the chances that Ukraine just happened to shoot down the one plane that carried their own soldiers? I mean, it could happen, but..



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


    Why would they be bringing prisoners further into Russia ,



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


    Ukraine is now saying that there was a prisoner exchange scheduled and are now investigating





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38 victorfranco


    “The problem with NATO is that it only works for its members”

    Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement