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

1353535363538354035413690

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    I would say there are many such assets in big militaries. Aircraft carriers for one. Even main battle tanks are vulnerable now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I see it as a positive in general, attacking a country (for good or bad reasons) is getting more expensive and the advantage is falling to the defender , there ought to be less war if it gets nose-bleedingly expensive and disadvantageous.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    With EU collective defence being so nascent, it would (IMO) be more likely to be some kind of cooperative mission under aegis of NATO between countries that are willing.

    Indeed, you'd just hope that whatever kind of coalition is formed, it'd have the legal mechanisms to react to provocation, or indeed outright attack. And numbers wise, it'd have to be something quantitative too: a few token troops hanging around the Kyiv suburbs sampling the pastries would add nothing - it'd have to have some kind of pragmatic threat to Russian forces by sheer dint of technology or volume of troops.

    I'd be shocked if this all comes to fruition, though Macron's sudden change of language is in of itself quite seismic; he was happy enough to pull a Chamberlain for the longest time so you'd have to wonder what changed - and was it some information passed to him we're not privy to? To hint that the West might want/need to put soldiers into Ukraine - even if merely as a 300lb gorilla or missile shield - is quite something.

    Let's see where this goes - cos you can be damn sure Zelensky reached for the hotline when that comment passed his desk, the obviously first question being How Serious Are you Emmanuel?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,187 ✭✭✭opinionated3


    Disappointing to see other euro nations rushing to put the dampeners on the macron comment/suggestion. Germany, Spain etc.

    Personally I believe its the only way to end this war with Ukraine keeping it's original borders intact. At the moment it feels like Putin is getting more and more confident. Are we all going to wait till Russian boots are at the outskirts of Kiev before we realise we've messed up?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 877 ✭✭✭eoinbn


    What has changed?! Is that a real question?

    What has changed is that the US has effectively left NATO. Why are people struggling to understand this?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Russian has it pretty rough in Ukraine but frankly it's embarrassing they're being given a lifeline by the West. They should have been run out of there by now.



  • This content has been removed.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Uh, no they haven't. What are you talking about? America remains a full member until January 2025 at least, then we'll see what Trump does if he wins.

    America mightn't be a useful guarantor at this minute, but it's still a large number of steps to walk before you speak publicly to putting troops in Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,928 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    An air defense mission alone would be massively helpful. Provide coverage in the interior to allow Ukraine to push its organic assets closer to the front, to where they could penetrate into Russian territory. Deny the Black Sea airspace for the Russians. Not explicitly confrontational but enough to tip the balance. The Euro countries would have to be prepared to engage any air defense assets that might try to engage them though.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Deny the Black Sea airspace for the Russians. Not explicitly confrontational but enough to tip the balance. The Euro countries would have to be prepared to engage any air defense assets that might try to engage them though.

    Therein lies the tricky needle with respect to a legal mandate: 'cos this idea only works if Russia thinks this EU Army force would attack if provoked enough; somebody has to blink and I daresay a Russian pilot would be more likely to press on than (say) a French pilot would be to retaliate. Especially if rules of engagement aren't adequately clarified for this theoretical Western force.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,327 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Yes, it would of course need to have a bit of weight to mean anything. It doesn't necessarily have to threaten Russia but the countries involved would want to accept they are going to have to make a serious response if (say) Russia is advancing in East of Ukraine and Putin decides to test their will to protect [rest of Ukraine] by directly attacking any troops they have sent into still unoccupied parts of the country. Will be very scary times anyway if it happened.

    I am not sure if there's additional information (other than what we can all see/what is being reported on - Ukraine is being starved of resources and suffering from it). Also not sure if it is that sudden a change. Macron has always struck me as a pretty cold and rational creature and I think for a good while he's accepted that Putin/Russia are not backing away from this any time soon, despite the horrific cost. The days of the phone calls to Putin are long gone.

    So either they will have some kind of "win" over Ukraine by Putin's own lights (even if it looks insane to us at the price/cost), they will be fought to a standstill and finally just run out of energy and will to continue the war (a N/S Korea type situation?) or they will be beaten backwards by military force. The latter 2 outcomes will not happen without large amounts of Western support to Ukraine continuing + increasing. The idea of peace deals and negotiations seems like a pipedream for now, and he realises that IMO.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,928 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Any EU force would have to be explicit about their willingness to engage threats against them and also to put their soldiers in danger. The public has to be understanding that people might die, and that opposing Russian aggression is worth the potential risk.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 877 ✭✭✭eoinbn


    Did you miss the word effectively? Having an alliance with an ally that is no longer reliable isn't worth a damn. Europe needs to see that. Poland sees it, hence why it is arming itself to the teeth. Other European countries are starting to wake up to that reality but at its usually snails pace.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    As it stands America is a NATO ally and if Russia invaded or attacked a NATO country, Article 5 comes into effect. That's not a question of reliability or discussion - but a legal treaty. Everything else is conjecture and (understandable) anxiety about Trump, but he didn't come down with the last shower either - his presence has been around since the war started and we knew then he was running in 2024.



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


    Given at least an outside possibility that Trump could come back, why would Europe trust the USA implicitly at this juncture??

    It's wise to allow for the fact that a Trump presidency would either just thumb it's nose at NATO commitments in Europe and / or just leave the pact.

    We've a lot more to lose and very foolish to rely heavily on the kindness of the USA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Especially since it was reported today that Trump seems to have made gains in swing states over Biden. Great encouragement for Putin..the EU needs to be prepared to go it alone against Russia.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Source? Cos the Primary Polling is telling a different story: Trump isn't appealing to the swing, independent or wandering voters whatsoever & I think the napkin math shows that the Haley voters going "no thanks" translate to about 25% of the overall GOP vote.

    As to national polls, it's beginning to tighten up and perhaps reflective of that bleed of soft-Republican voters; TBH the more things like Trump's brainfarts occur, or Alabama's IVF decision colours the mood, then the more it plays into the anxiety of liberals to get out and vote, or repulse independent voters enough to hold their nose for Biden.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,065 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Unfortunately 2% should be the base level.


    The German army is so run down and poorly equipped today that it effectively has no functional army.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,065 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    America is NATO, there are alot of accompanying plates in that meal but it is America.


    Every US President for the last 20 years should have been repeatedly calling out the diabolical State of European armies and the absolute refusal to take their own defense seriously or pay for it.


    One good thing from Trump refusing to pay Europes tab is that it will force some in Western Europe to take their own security and well being seriously, not all, some. For some there is an ideological opposition to do so.


    We l



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭jmreire


    It would have to be put in the context that Putin has to be stopped dead (literally, if possible) and either its done now (or ASAP) under conditions of our (west's) choosing, to minimize loss of life, or delay until there will not be any choice because we will be forced to fight, and if that happens, the loss of life may be far greater.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭aidanodr


    Trump for president :D

    GHNGPQSX0AAyl4Y.jpg




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭ZeroThreat


    Can they really take on heavy duty long range interceptors with extreme long range missiles and long range radars such as the Mig-31 though?

    Not to mention the stealthy Su-57 felons (albeit yet to be introduced to Ukrainian theatre) and more modern flankers such as the Su-35s and Su-30s which also can carry very long range AAMs.


    Gripens and F-16s are light short range clear weather day fighters that will struggle against more rugged russian gear imo



  • This content has been removed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    So no planes and help 'them' to survive. Is 'them' the Russians?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭aidanodr




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,076 ✭✭✭aidanodr


    i could see Macron being a voice in the wilderness with what he said last evening




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Don't get me wrong, it's a positive for sure. But Macron can shoot from the hip quite a bit and not always follow it up consistently. At the end of the day, they have seemingly provided less military aid than Germany still (albeit I think they are more secretive about what they provide).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,571 ✭✭✭rogber


    Unfortunately as we've seen the other main NATO partners have all rejected the idea today anyway, much to the delight of Peskov and the other Kremlin criminals, who can again relax knowing there's no real unity or will in the West to deal Russia a fatal blow in this war. It's f*kin depressing, basically just a green light to Russia to hang in there, even Ukraine's allies basically saying the country has little chance of regaining territory this year and none of their allies seem particularly bothered by it:




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,543 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    While France would probably have to go through an EU backed mandate to put boots on the ground, post-Brexit Britain wouldn't.

    One could also argue that as signatories of the Budapest Memorandum they're morally if not quite legally obligated to do so. The UK has a longer history and more recent track record of involving itself in international wars too. I'm almost surprised the Tory's haven't already sent troops as part of some last-ditch bid to avoid their inevitable electoral slaughter later this year...



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement