The Ukraine War thread

[Which Tyler]

Ultimately it was futile, Trump what's planned to throw Ukraine under the bus and has done so for years. No doubt Putin has played a large role in Trumps hatred of the country.

Ukraine refused to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden.
Trump never needed anything else to decide they didn't deserve to exist

 

[McTallshort]

Interesting that Russia is now willing to enter talks after saying for the last 12 months that the war is "over" and it's only a matter of time before Ukraine collapses.

Since the new year the Ukrainians have been hitting Russian oil infrastructure really hard with home made drones and this along with a massive reduction in Russian AFVs due to attrition has really slowed down Russian offensive actions in the Donbass and Kursk and its own attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure

It's weird but I feel in 6 months on it's current trajectory the war will have turned massively in favour of the Ukrainians but that's easy for me to say as I'm not sat in a trench in Donbass or going to the air raid shelter every night.

Regards Trump sidelining Ukraine, well even in my most optimistic moments I kinda knew deep down this was coming. Anything pro Trump on social media tends by default to be pro Russia and Putin.

It's heart breaking but as Europeans we completely ignored to signs of rising russian aggression even when they were carrying out chemical attacks in England. Its not surprising that the countries that have the highest military budgets to GDP tend to border Russia and countries like Germany under Merkels leadership let their militaries rot for cheap Russian hydrocarbons. Everyone just seems to want it to go away and no one wants to face reality of this new more confrontational world especially among EU nations.

Perhaps getting out of the EU might prove a wise decision after all.

 

[Gavin]

 

[AlRums]

Interesting that Russia is now willing to enter talks after saying for the last 12 months that the war is "over" and it's only a matter of time before Ukraine collapses.

Since the new year the Ukrainians have been hitting Russian oil infrastructure really hard with home made drones and this along with a massive reduction in Russian AFVs due to attrition has really slowed down Russian offensive actions in the Donbass and Kursk and its own attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure

It's weird but I feel in 6 months on it's current trajectory the war will have turned massively in favour of the Ukrainians but that's easy for me to say as I'm not sat in a trench in Donbass or going to the air raid shelter every night.

Regards Trump sidelining Ukraine, well even in my most optimistic moments I kinda knew deep down this was coming. Anything pro Trump on social media tends by default to be pro Russia and Putin.

It's heart breaking but as Europeans we completely ignored to signs of rising russian aggression even when they were carrying out chemical attacks in England. Its not surprising that the countries that have the highest military budgets to GDP tend to border Russia and countries like Germany under Merkels leadership let their militaries rot for cheap Russian hydrocarbons. Everyone just seems to want it to go away and no one wants to face reality of this new more confrontational world especially among EU nations.

Perhaps getting out of the EU might prove a wise decision after all.

Do not forget trump actively campaigned to kill any bills by the democrats which advanced his desires, border control for example, so can look like the hero who's the only one doing what "the country", less than 50%, are demanding. It wouldn't surprise me if he hasn't been in contact with Putin all along.

Trump wants to exclude any other countries because he's got his eyes on those minerals. No way does he want any other country to claim or deal for a share.

Wouldn't surprise me if he and Putin are looking at a way to divvy up the prize which is probably why he's excluding Ukraine.

You can't do a deal for an end to war without both sides at least being at the table. And you can't exclude the majority aid donors.

The US with Vance today has made it very plain today that they don't give a **** about Europe in any shape or form.

They regard Europe as just not being as hard right therefore ignorable.

It should get to the point where trump should just be told to f off and keep his nose out. He's not going to solve anything, he's going to exacerbate problems even more which the yanks have been doing for years.

Personally I would like our politicians to grow a pair and tell them to get their military out of all British territories (including Diego Garcia, that's vital to the US) and close their listening posts at Menwith Hill. If not kick them out then use it as a bargaining point. Let's face it the US will do nothing to defend the UK .

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Let's face it the US will do nothing to defend the UK .

TBF this is nothing new, the relationship has been entirely 1 way. When the Falklands were invaded, the USA could so easily have done so much to help us but they barely lifted a finger. At the time Reagan and Thatcher were in power, arguably the closest of the "special relationship" and they didn't do anything at all then.

 

[McTallshort]

TBF this is nothing new, the relationship has been entirely 1 way. When the Falklands were invaded, the USA could so easily have done so much to help us but they barely lifted a finger. At the time Reagan and Thatcher were in power, arguably the closest of the "special relationship" and they didn't do anything at all then.

That's not quite true regards the Falklands. Although there were some in Regan's circle (Kirkpatrick) who were pro Argentina the main body of the American administration were pro the British position and actively provided Britain with intelligence but it was a conflict between two sovereign nations over something America had no real business getting involved with.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That's not quite true regards the Falklands. Although there were some in Regan's circle (Kirkpatrick) who were pro Argentina the main body of the American administration were pro the British position and actively provided Britain with intelligence but it was a conflict between two sovereign nations over something America had no real business getting involved with.

I'd say intelligence sharing is kinda the bare minimum of what should be expected from supposedly the 2 closest allies in the whole world with a "special relationship" etc. The USA has no business being involved in Israel either yet offers them vastly more support than we received.

 

[McTallshort]

Do not forget trump actively campaigned to kill any bills by the democrats which advanced his desires, border control for example, so can look like the hero who's the only one doing what "the country", less than 50%, are demanding. It wouldn't surprise me if he hasn't been in contact with Putin all along.

Trump wants to exclude any other countries because he's got his eyes on those minerals. No way does he want any other country to claim or deal for a share.

Wouldn't surprise me if he and Putin are looking at a way to divvy up the prize which is probably why he's excluding Ukraine.

You can't do a deal for an end to war without both sides at least being at the table. And you can't exclude the majority aid donors.

The US with Vance today has made it very plain today that they don't give a **** about Europe in any shape or form.

They regard Europe as just not being as hard right therefore ignorable.

It should get to the point where trump should just be told to f off and keep his nose out. He's not going to solve anything, he's going to exacerbate problems even more which the yanks have been doing for years.

Personally I would like our politicians to grow a pair and tell them to get their military out of all British territories (including Diego Garcia, that's vital to the US) and close their listening posts at Menwith Hill. If not kick them out then use it as a bargaining point. Let's face it the US will do nothing to defend the UK .

No one in Europe can tell Trump to **** off because without America we in Europe are kinda ****** on a strategic level.

Most countries in Europe are below 2% of military spending with the likes of Ireland sitting at 0.02%. Russia's current military spend exceeds all of the EUs and UKs combined so if they weren't so incompetent and corrupt we could be in serious trouble.

Personally I feel Britain should look at entering an alliance with Scandinavia, Poland, the Baltics and eventually Ukraine and kind of forget everyone else in Europe as they don't seem interested in fighting Russia and would rather swallow a mafia state with Nuclear weapons swinging their little knob about making threats.

We absolutely can't relay on America in terms of European security but should stay within the five eyes set up regards the Pacific.

 

[McTallshort]

I'd say intelligence sharing is kinda the bare minimum of what should be expected from supposedly the 2 closest allies in the whole world with a "special relationship" etc. The USA has no business being involved in Israel either yet offers them vastly more support than we received.

Dont disagree but it's a different situation. Having Israel on board saves the Americans the cost of a 5th fleet and given how effectively Israel subdued Iran, Hezbollah and the Huthis that does make sense. America has no interest in the Falklands and Argentina and Britain were both allies. I'm glad America for the most part stayed out of it. It wasn't their conflict to fight

 

[Saintjay]

I'd say intelligence sharing is kinda the bare minimum of what should be expected from supposedly the 2 closest allies in the whole world with a "special relationship" etc. The USA has no business being involved in Israel either yet offers them vastly more support than we received.

America did side with the UK in the end which had the impact of the Argentinians becoming friendly with communist countries especially Cuba. They were also put out as they'd helped the US with the contra rebels.

Vietnam was still very much a sore point. Less than 10 years after the war I believe.

I read an article that it was also a benefit at the time to show the USSR that a Nato member was capable of fighting a war and not be reliant on America. Which given the present day is rather apt.

 

[Which Tyler]

Julia Hartley Brewer vs Richard Tice - is this "friendly fire"?

 

[Amiga500]

No one in Europe can tell Trump to **** off because without America we in Europe are kinda ****** on a strategic level.

Are we?

Outside of China, which no-one is going to actively tackle anyway in the near future - what countries would be able to stop (any reasonable scenario) requiring European power projection?
India maybe?

With the quantity of quality submarines available within European nations, sea denial is fairly straightforward.

Air control is a bit less clear cut. Seaborn airstrikes are an option off CdG or QE/PoW, but there are no real bombers in the mould of B-1, B-2, Tu-160 available. But does there need to be with standoff precision munitions?

In terms of ground control, I can't foresee a scenario where the political will would exist to deploy troops into any combat zones in non European countries.

 

[McTallshort]

Are we?

Outside of China, which no-one is going to actively tackle anyway in the near future - what countries would be able to stop (any reasonable scenario) requiring European power projection?
India maybe?

With the quantity of quality submarines available within European nations, sea denial is fairly straightforward.

Air control is a bit less clear cut. Seaborn airstrikes are an option off CdG or QE/PoW, but there are no real bombers in the mould of B-1, B-2, Tu-160 available. But does there need to be with standoff precision munitions?

In terms of ground control, I can't foresee a scenario where the political will would exist to deploy troops into any combat zones in non European countries.

Scenario: It's 2026 and Russia has been without sanctions for year. Several foreign companies have gone in and invested in it oil and gas industries and the coffers are filling up. Russia has continued its campaign of disinformation and is building up it's military. They start complaining that Russian minorities in say Estonia are being attacked by leftist, satanic, woke lesbians and this is magnified by dickheads like Tim Pool, Elon Musk and the ugly Ken doll that is JD Vance.

Russia moves forces up to the border and demands that Estonia has elections and leaves NATO.

At the same time Russia continues to move it's spy boats around the west coast of Ireland chopping up undersea cables.

Trump says Putin has a right to defend itself and it's people and refuses to get involved.

What do you see the nations of Europe and the UK doing about it?

Genuine question.

 

[Amiga500]

First, and relatively easy step is torpedo the spy boats. Any of half a dozen European navies have that capability.
They shouldn't have sonar capable of identifying and tracking torpedoes - so in order to produce evidence, the Russians will have to admit they aren't fishing trawlers.

Second step is to deploy token forces to Estonia and ensure the Russians know they are deployed. So if the Russians do attack - they do so in the full knowledge they will likely kill soldiers from many NATO nations.
If they do decide to push ahead anyway - then European airpower will decimate anything Russia has deployed to the border.


The only thing that would prevent either of the above is the political will to do it - the capability exists right now.


We've seen Russian S-400s aren't capable of protecting themselves right now. Why would that substantially change in 2 years?
We've seen that the RuAF cannot operate with impunity over a Ukraine that was until recently armed only with vastly outdated 80s-era kit. Why would that change in 2 years?


I do get that Europe has been asleep at the wheel for far too long with regards defence investment and (ironically) largely agree with your premise. But corruption within the Russian military-industrial complex has left Russia even worse off!

 

[Saintjay]

First, and relatively easy step is torpedo the spy boats. Any of half a dozen European navies have that capability.
They shouldn't have sonar capable of identifying and tracking torpedoes - so in order to produce evidence, the Russians will have to admit they aren't fishing trawlers.

Second step is to deploy token forces to Estonia and ensure the Russians know they are deployed. So if the Russians do attack - they do so in the full knowledge they will likely kill soldiers from many NATO nations.
If they do decide to push ahead anyway - then European airpower will decimate anything Russia has deployed to the border.


The only thing that would prevent either of the above is the political will to do it - the capability exists right now.


We've seen Russian S-400s aren't capable of protecting themselves right now. Why would that substantially change in 2 years?
We've seen that the RuAF cannot operate with impunity over a Ukraine that was until recently armed only with vastly outdated 80s-era kit. Why would that change in 2 years?


I do get that Europe has been asleep at the wheel for far too long with regards defence investment and (ironically) largely agree with your premise. But corruption within the Russian military-industrial complex has left Russia even worse off!

Sub things a non starter. The Russian nuclear subs are more than capable of trawling and following most European subs. Same as the Royal Navy hunt and track Russians. Only us and the French have ultra quiet nuclear subs as far as I'm aware.

Diesel subs are like trying to sneak about in a Reliant Robin.

Randomly destroying trawlers sailing under what ever flag would be an act of war and an escalation most countries wouldn't go for it. Something they've been careful to avoid so far.

 

[McTallshort]

First, and relatively easy step is torpedo the spy boats. Any of half a dozen European navies have that capability.
They shouldn't have sonar capable of identifying and tracking torpedoes - so in order to produce evidence, the Russians will have to admit they aren't fishing trawlers.

Second step is to deploy token forces to Estonia and ensure the Russians know they are deployed. So if the Russians do attack - they do so in the full knowledge they will likely kill soldiers from many NATO nations.
If they do decide to push ahead anyway - then European airpower will decimate anything Russia has deployed to the border.


The only thing that would prevent either of the above is the political will to do it - the capability exists right now.


We've seen Russian S-400s aren't capable of protecting themselves right now. Why would that substantially change in 2 years?
We've seen that the RuAF cannot operate with impunity over a Ukraine that was until recently armed only with vastly outdated 80s-era kit. Why would that change in 2 years?


I do get that Europe has been asleep at the wheel for far too long with regards defence investment and (ironically) largely agree with your premise. But corruption within the Russian military-industrial complex has left Russia even worse off!

So first question. Who's going to torpedo a Russian ship in Irish national waters? The Irish navy?

Second question: whose going to deploy troops to Estonia? Germany? Hungary? Slovakia? Obviously that's a **** take but why would Poland, Sweden and the UK deploy is no one else is?

I don't see the political will right now.

Yeah the Russians have **** SAM systems but back in the fold they can get Chinese stuff.

Yes Russia is a **** house but that won't stop them trying this **** on and without the septics most European nations don't have the balls.

 

[Amiga500]

Sub things a non starter. The Russian nuclear subs are more than capable of trawling and following most European subs. Same as the Royal Navy hunt and track Russians. Only us and the French have ultra quiet nuclear subs as far as I'm aware.

Diesel subs are like trying to sneak about in a Reliant Robin.

Randomly destroying trawlers sailing under what ever flag would be an act of war and an escalation most countries wouldn't go for it. Something they've been careful to avoid so far.

Electric submarines are quieter than nuclear when able to run on battery - the continental shelf is less than 300 km from the Irish coast.

Any Russian submarine trailing a European submarine will typically have been counter detected long before it actually made acquisition. The acoustics of all Soviet submarines were nowhere near as good as NATO equivalents.

 

[Amiga500]

So first question. Who's going to torpedo a Russian ship in Irish national waters? The Irish navy?

Second question: whose going to deploy troops to Estonia? Germany? Hungary? Slovakia? Obviously that's a **** take but why would Poland, Sweden and the UK deploy is no one else is?

I don't see the political will right now.

Yeah the Russians have **** SAM systems but back in the fold they can get Chinese stuff.

Yes Russia is a **** house but that won't stop them trying this **** on and without the septics most European nations don't have the balls.

#1: The action wouldn't have to happen in Irish territorial waters - in fact it'd make more sense further offshore in crap weather conditions.

#2: That's political will, not capability. I had assumed your post was referring to capability, not political will...?

 

[McTallshort]

#1: The action wouldn't have to happen in Irish territorial waters - in fact it'd make more sense further offshore in crap weather conditions.

#2: That's political will, not capability. I had assumed your post was referring to capability, not political will...?

Bit of both to be honest. I don't see the capability in the British military or the political capability

The only nations I do see it in are Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Everyone else in Europe isn't up for it.

If the ships cutting cables in Irish waters (they already are) how are you going to stop it? And yes it's a bit of a loaded question