Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia Conflict

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Putin's plans for Ukraine are very simple. Invade, take it over, change its government and pull back. Like he should have done in the first place in 2014.
 

blackjack

Active member
Messages
82
Reactions
50
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Ukraine
No, I have Russia mixed up with Russia: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ssian-chemical-weapons-facilities-on-its-soil

And that's just a start.

Armenians tried to shit on Turkish drone tech by yelling about Wescam producing cameras for TB-2s...which wasn't even true by the time they posted that since Canada put an embargo on Turkey regarding operations against YPG.
conspiracy theory chemical weapons on german soil? I might as well post armenian or kurdish news sources about Turkey here next if you get the joke.

talking about this image.

1642175955270.png
 

HaZZan

Committed member
Messages
179
Reactions
251
Nation of residence
Algeria
Nation of origin
Western Sahara
The invasion of Ukraine 80% will happen. I hope Turkiey stay away from this war i wanna see The Europeans' hands get dirty they said Turkiey is not part of Europe so...
 

AWP

Committed member
Messages
156
Reactions
257
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Palestine
The invasion of Ukraine 80% will happen. I hope Turkiey stay away from this war i wanna see The Europeans' hands get dirty they said Turkiey is not part of Europe so...

turkey can't stay away from this in fact no country can , either the us or russia no place in between .

what I expect that ukraine will be invaded , EU or NATO will not militarily interfere but they will start an economic sanctions that will send russia to dark ages
 

McCool

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
27
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Here's the conclusion:
  1. Without NATO, Ukraine would surely lose. Russia is no good against a modern well armed and well trained military like NATO, but surely will have no problem against the Ukrainians.
  2. Ukraine accession to NATO must be put in accelerated pace
  3. Put extra attention towards Belarus, there's a real possibility that an attack would come from that particular vector. Dictatorship most of the time didn't think rationally.
  4. Ukraine must be a wake up call for Europe, the peace dividend of the cold war is OVER. European characteristics of military divestment like in the past 25+ years has to stop.
  5. In the end, if Russia did invade, maybe this is US's own opportunity to warn its European allies to take more share of the defense burden.
  6. But if the Russians didn't invade, the US should push the Ukrainians for reforms
  7. Even if the west won't interfere, at the very least a steady supply of weapons must be granted for the entire duration of the war.
  8. In the political arena, any Russian move towards Ukraine should be met with counter threat of Finnish or even Swedish accession towards NATO. These countries are pretty much a NATO members already without the formal accession.
 

blackjack

Active member
Messages
82
Reactions
50
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Ukraine

Lavrov strikes back at US diplomat’s ‘return troops to the barracks’ comment

Earlier, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told reporters that sending Russian troops located on the Russian-Ukrainian border back to the barracks would prove that Moscow had no plans to invade that country

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Western countries went to extremes demanding that Russia ‘send troops to the barracks’ on its own soil, while they opened up military bases on the territories of the Baltic States and in northern Europe countries, as well as in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said speaking at a press conference on the results of Russia’s diplomatic activities in 2021 on Friday.
During a special press phone call earlier, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led the American delegation at the Russia-US consultations on security guarantees in Geneva, told reporters that sending Russian troops located on the Russian-Ukrainian border back to the barracks would prove that Moscow had no plans to invade that country.
"We are categorically opposed to developments, where we are requested to send [our] troops ‘to the barracks’ on our own soil, yet simultaneously the Americans, Canadians, British actually ensconce themselves under the guise of a rotation (a very provisional rotation) in the Baltic States and in the countries of northern Europe, as they open military bases near the Black Sea. What’s more, the British are building a base in Ukraine: they are setting up a base in the Sea of Azov," Lavrov said. "This is an inadmissible approach."
"Therefore, the time chosen [for Russia to present the West with legally binding proposals on security guarantees] simply reflects the period, when the West went to extremes, frankly speaking," Russia’s top diplomat stated

Lavrov stressed that the Western countries "in breach of all obligations and common sense" opted to exacerbate the situation.


On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry released a draft agreement on security guarantees between Russia and the United States and a draft agreement on ensuring the security of Russia and NATO member states. Consultations on the issue took place in Geneva on January 10, followed by a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on January 12 and a session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Permanent Council in Vienna on January 13.


Russia able to ensure its security, not going to wait for West’s promises — top diplomat

The foreign minister recalled that Moscow had already tried to put forward a draft treaty on European security, but it was "tactlessly misunderstood"

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russia knows how to ensure its security and is not going to endlessly wait for some changes and West’s promises, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at a press conference on Friday.
According to the top diplomat, NATO is trying to dictate its will to everyone. "We know and are able to safeguard our security in any case, and I can assure you that we are not going to endlessly wait for some changes and promises," Lavrov said.
The foreign minister recalled that Moscow had already tried to put forward a draft treaty on European security, but it was "tactlessly misunderstood." "We said that we just wanted to translate political obligations into a legally binding form. The answer was illustrative - [they stated that] <…> legally binding guarantees could be provided exclusively to NATO members," according to Lavrov.
"This philosophy undermines everything that was achieved by the OSCE after the end of the Cold War, including the principle that no union in the Euro-Atlantic region can dictate its will to others," the top diplomat pointed out. "And [NATO] is doing this and, apparently, enjoying it <…>," Lavrov said.


Western response on security to reveal its sincerity towards Russia — Lavrov

When Moscow asked to move the guarantees of security into the status of legal obligations in 2010, NATO said that it provided legal obligations only to the organization's member states, the Russian Foreign Minister recalled

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. The written response from the US and NATO to Russia’s proposals on security will indicate, how sincere Western partners are towards Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a press conference Friday.
"As President [Vladimir Putin] said, and as we have repeatedly reiterated, we introduced the documents and we insist that our main concern regarding NATO’s non-expansion becomes legally binding," he said. "In response, I expect to receive something coherent, besides the current discourse that this is unacceptable for the West."
"Let’s see what they provide us on paper, and then we will decide, how sincere our Western colleagues are, not back in the 1990s, but right now, in their relations with Russia," Lavrov noted.
When asked when this security demand appeared, the Minister underscored that "it was always there."


"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the security demand started forming into political obligations, adopted at the highest level. Our Western colleagues misused these political obligations, and did not fulfill them, to put it simply," the Minister said. "When we asked to move the guarantees of security into the status of legal obligations and proposed a corresponding document back in 2010, we were told: ‘this does not concern you, we only provide legal obligations to NATO member states.’"
In 30 years, Russia "has accumulated enough understanding on how to act further," Lavrov said, adding that "nothing will come out of promises and political spells."
 

blackjack

Active member
Messages
82
Reactions
50
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Ukraine
Russia is no good against a modern well armed and well trained military like NATO, but surely will have no problem against the Ukrainians.
does Europe have enough tanks, air defenses and ground troops? there is only so much the U.S. can do in Europe? Speaking of modern is any european country even making exoskeleton suits like ratnik-3? atleast give examples.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Here's the conclusion:
  1. Without NATO, Ukraine would surely lose. Russia is no good against a modern well armed and well trained military like NATO, but surely will have no problem against the Ukrainians.
  2. Ukraine accession to NATO must be put in accelerated pace
  3. Put extra attention towards Belarus, there's a real possibility that an attack would come from that particular vector. Dictatorship most of the time didn't think rationally.
  4. Ukraine must be a wake up call for Europe, the peace dividend of the cold war is OVER. European characteristics of military divestment like in the past 25+ years has to stop.
  5. In the end, if Russia did invade, maybe this is US's own opportunity to warn its European allies to take more share of the defense burden.
  6. But if the Russians didn't invade, the US should push the Ukrainians for reforms
  7. Even if the west won't interfere, at the very least a steady supply of weapons must be granted for the entire duration of the war.
  8. In the political arena, any Russian move towards Ukraine should be met with counter threat of Finnish or even Swedish accession towards NATO. These countries are pretty much a NATO members already without the formal accession.


Lavrov strikes back at US diplomat’s ‘return troops to the barracks’ comment

Earlier, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told reporters that sending Russian troops located on the Russian-Ukrainian border back to the barracks would prove that Moscow had no plans to invade that country

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Western countries went to extremes demanding that Russia ‘send troops to the barracks’ on its own soil, while they opened up military bases on the territories of the Baltic States and in northern Europe countries, as well as in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said speaking at a press conference on the results of Russia’s diplomatic activities in 2021 on Friday.
During a special press phone call earlier, US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who led the American delegation at the Russia-US consultations on security guarantees in Geneva, told reporters that sending Russian troops located on the Russian-Ukrainian border back to the barracks would prove that Moscow had no plans to invade that country.
"We are categorically opposed to developments, where we are requested to send [our] troops ‘to the barracks’ on our own soil, yet simultaneously the Americans, Canadians, British actually ensconce themselves under the guise of a rotation (a very provisional rotation) in the Baltic States and in the countries of northern Europe, as they open military bases near the Black Sea. What’s more, the British are building a base in Ukraine: they are setting up a base in the Sea of Azov," Lavrov said. "This is an inadmissible approach."
"Therefore, the time chosen [for Russia to present the West with legally binding proposals on security guarantees] simply reflects the period, when the West went to extremes, frankly speaking," Russia’s top diplomat stated

Lavrov stressed that the Western countries "in breach of all obligations and common sense" opted to exacerbate the situation.


On December 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry released a draft agreement on security guarantees between Russia and the United States and a draft agreement on ensuring the security of Russia and NATO member states. Consultations on the issue took place in Geneva on January 10, followed by a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on January 12 and a session of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Permanent Council in Vienna on January 13.


Russia able to ensure its security, not going to wait for West’s promises — top diplomat

The foreign minister recalled that Moscow had already tried to put forward a draft treaty on European security, but it was "tactlessly misunderstood"

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. Russia knows how to ensure its security and is not going to endlessly wait for some changes and West’s promises, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at a press conference on Friday.
According to the top diplomat, NATO is trying to dictate its will to everyone. "We know and are able to safeguard our security in any case, and I can assure you that we are not going to endlessly wait for some changes and promises," Lavrov said.
The foreign minister recalled that Moscow had already tried to put forward a draft treaty on European security, but it was "tactlessly misunderstood." "We said that we just wanted to translate political obligations into a legally binding form. The answer was illustrative - [they stated that] <…> legally binding guarantees could be provided exclusively to NATO members," according to Lavrov.
"This philosophy undermines everything that was achieved by the OSCE after the end of the Cold War, including the principle that no union in the Euro-Atlantic region can dictate its will to others," the top diplomat pointed out. "And [NATO] is doing this and, apparently, enjoying it <…>," Lavrov said.


Western response on security to reveal its sincerity towards Russia — Lavrov

When Moscow asked to move the guarantees of security into the status of legal obligations in 2010, NATO said that it provided legal obligations only to the organization's member states, the Russian Foreign Minister recalled

MOSCOW, January 14. /TASS/. The written response from the US and NATO to Russia’s proposals on security will indicate, how sincere Western partners are towards Moscow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a press conference Friday.
"As President [Vladimir Putin] said, and as we have repeatedly reiterated, we introduced the documents and we insist that our main concern regarding NATO’s non-expansion becomes legally binding," he said. "In response, I expect to receive something coherent, besides the current discourse that this is unacceptable for the West."
"Let’s see what they provide us on paper, and then we will decide, how sincere our Western colleagues are, not back in the 1990s, but right now, in their relations with Russia," Lavrov noted.
When asked when this security demand appeared, the Minister underscored that "it was always there."


"After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the security demand started forming into political obligations, adopted at the highest level. Our Western colleagues misused these political obligations, and did not fulfill them, to put it simply," the Minister said. "When we asked to move the guarantees of security into the status of legal obligations and proposed a corresponding document back in 2010, we were told: ‘this does not concern you, we only provide legal obligations to NATO member states.’"
In 30 years, Russia "has accumulated enough understanding on how to act further," Lavrov said, adding that "nothing will come out of promises and political spells."
Hilarious to me how the French, Germans, Chinese, Russians all perceive the English civilization and hegemony, yet the English people ourselves never understand it. We view ourselves as different nations, when we are one civilization.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
does Europe have enough tanks, air defenses and ground troops? there is only so much the U.S. can do in Europe? Speaking of modern is any european country even making exoskeleton suits like ratnik-3? atleast give examples.
The answer to this is no. And Ukraine has nothing to do with the US and NATO or the EU. Nothing at all. Same as Georgia doesn't. Where as the European outcry when the Turkish were defeating Armenia, they weren't banging on about that to protect poor weak Armenia against Turkey.

These people make me sick. Evil scum.
 

McCool

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
27
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
does Europe have enough tanks, air defenses and ground troops? there is only so much the U.S. can do in Europe? Speaking of modern is any european country even making exoskeleton suits like ratnik-3? atleast give examples.
modern wars are won by air power, Russia only has less than 1/5th of NATO combat aircraft. Good luck with your tanks :LOL:
 

McCool

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
27
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
modern wars are won by air power, Russia only has less than 1/5th of NATO combat aircraft. Good luck with your tanks :LOL:
correction, Russia only has less than 1/5th of NATO minus US combat aircraft.

the world's largest air force are the USAF followed by the USN. I don't see Russia has any edge other than their AD system which has been constantly humiliated by the coalition, Israel and Turkey in ME and Nagorno-Karabakh.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
modern wars are won by air power, Russia only has less than 1/5th of NATO combat aircraft. Good luck with your tanks
Then the problem for NATO is moving their aircraft into position to strike Russia, whereas the Russians can just move into position within Russia and Ukraine. The other issue for NATO is the Russians have layered defences with integration from space to sea, they haven't faced anything like this ever. Defeat Iraq is the closest the NATO has come. So the Russians don't need as many aircraft, they just need to keep the American carriers out of the Baltic sea and Black sea, if they do that the Americans will take months to get into position by which time the war is over. This is why the Russians are complaining about NATO basing more troops next to Russia's borders. There needs to be a compromise somewhere in this or there will be a war between Russia and Ukraine. I don't believe Russia wants Ukraine, I just think they don't want Ukraine to be aligned with NATO and EU.

Whereas it is very clear that the politicians in power in Ukraine are pushing for NATO and EU membership, so the Russians can't allow that and that Ukrainian government was installed by the CIA. So for me the Russians have a perfect case to militarily intervene and overthrow the Ukraine government. And if they did all these problems with Russia would go away overnight, things would settle down again.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
correction, Russia only has less than 1/5th of NATO minus US combat aircraft.

the world's largest air force are the USAF followed by the USN. I don't see Russia has any edge other than their AD system which has been constantly humiliated by the coalition, Israel and Turkey in ME and Nagorno-Karabakh.
TBF they did perform rather well in Iraq, which is a flat desert with not strategic defences. And Armenia did shot down a lot of enemy aircraft, when it has no strategic depth at all and a tiny air force.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,344
Reactions
1 4,550
Nation of residence
Ukraine
Nation of origin
Turkey

McCool

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
27
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Then the problem for NATO is moving their aircraft into position to strike Russia, whereas the Russians can just move into position within Russia and Ukraine.

1500+ jets are in Continental Europe already, do you know that the US had at least 2-3 carriers on patrol each year at one point on planet earth ?

USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: Jan. 10, 2022

FT_1_10_22-660x370.jpg


each of those supercarriers battle group could carry 90+ combat jets ready with its peacetime escorts of 3-4 destroyers and cruisers (each comes with 96-122 VLS) and could be ordered to sail in places that would increase the threat and complexity for Russia to continue for an attack.
The other issue for NATO is the Russians have layered defences with integration from space to sea, they haven't faced anything like this ever.

do you know that the US has eyes and ears on every corner on earth, their spy planes are everywhere

whatever defense its enemies prepared are 99.99999999% will already been mapped out, no matter if its the AD layers in Russia or China's supposed A2/AD in the Pacific

Defeat Iraq is the closest the NATO has come.
Defeating Iraq is a gargantuan task that no modern militaries has come anywhere close.
. So the Russians don't need as many aircraft, they just need to keep the American carriers out of the Baltic sea and Black sea, if they do that the Americans will take months to get into position by which time the war is over
let's do some maths, the speed of which an aircraft carrier usually run is 30 knots or 55km/hr.

If the Vinson CSG currently on patrol in the SCS are deemed necessary to intimidate Russia in Vladivostok 3500km away , it would take around 63 hours or less than 3 days. If the Truman CSG now currently on the Mediterranean are ordered to sail into the Black sea they would've popped out tomorrow morning.

The versatility, flexibility and firepower of a modern CSG (and especially that of a US CSG) are something that no modern militaries have any answer to.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
2,344
Reactions
1 4,550
Nation of residence
Ukraine
Nation of origin
Turkey
CIA trains Ukrainian special forces
Yahoo News has learned about a covert CIA training program for Ukrainian special forces since 2015.



The United States has a secret program to train the Ukrainian military, according to the American press. A secret training program for Ukrainian special forces under the auspices of the CIA has been functioning allegedly since 2015. What is known about it ?

Tasks

According to Yahoo News sources, carefully selected Ukrainian fighters are training in camps in the southern United States. The program was started during the administration of Barack Obama, but the subsequent administrations of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, for all their differences, only expanded it. The main focus of the training was on intelligence gathering, sources insist, but graduates of the program could play an important role in organizing guerrilla warfare in occupied territory if Russia decides to launch a full-scale invasion. "Everything that happened to us in Afghanistan, they will eat it up to their throats with these guys," a former high-ranking American intelligence officer was quoted by Yahoo News (of course, anonymously).





Taking into account Russia

Interestingly, the CIA was extremely cautious in its approach to cooperation with the Ukrainian special services, believing that they were stuffed with Russian agents. The Americans insisted that all Ukrainian structures associated with this program be isolated as much as possible from the main part of the power structures. The training took place in strict secrecy, and there were cases when Ukrainians were sent home already from the United States for such violations as possession of unaccounted for electronic devices. Under the Trump administration, it was decided not to tell the Ukrainians anything that must be kept secret from the Russians.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
1500+ jets are in Continental Europe already, do you know that the US had at least 2-3 carriers on patrol each year at one point on planet earth ?

USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: Jan. 10, 2022

FT_1_10_22-660x370.jpg


each of those supercarriers battle group could carry 90+ combat jets ready with its peacetime escorts of 3-4 destroyers and cruisers (each comes with 96-122 VLS) and could be ordered to sail in places that would increase the threat and complexity for Russia to continue for an attack.


do you know that the US has eyes and ears on every corner on earth, their spy planes are everywhere

whatever defense its enemies prepared are 99.99999999% will already been mapped out, no matter if its the AD layers in Russia or China's supposed A2/AD in the Pacific


Defeating Iraq is a gargantuan task that no modern militaries has come anywhere close.

let's do some maths, the speed of which an aircraft carrier usually run is 30 knots or 55km/hr.

If the Vinson CSG currently on patrol in the SCS are deemed necessary to intimidate Russia in Vladivostok 3500km away , it would take around 63 hours or less than 3 days. If the Truman CSG now currently on the Mediterranean are ordered to sail into the Black sea they would've popped out tomorrow morning.

The versatility, flexibility and firepower of a modern CSG (and especially that of a US CSG) are something that no modern militaries have any answer to.
I appreciate the comment and I like your name.

The power dynamic of the aircraft carrier has changed in the past 10 years. So before the US could send a CSG and a marine group anywhere in the world post the fall of the soviet union and it would dominate the area. However with the Russians/Iranians/Chinese building up their anti-CSG capabilities the Americans have had to pull back the carriers or bring more carriers. Shifting from a CSG to a carrier battle group to shift the balance of power in an area. So before the US could have confidently move their carrier and support ships and marine groups in the med to the black sea and launched operations against Russia. Now however they would have to send two-three carriers, 20 support ships and likely a couple marine groups.

So I would have totally agreed with your points 10 years ago, but now I don't. It would take the US 3 months to work up the forces to push into the black sea or the baltic or against the Russian northern fleet. With British/French/Japanese support as well, it would be 3-4 carriers, 25-30 escorts and other replenishment ships. Then they could counter and withstand the Russian counter measures. And building a fleet of 50 ships, is very different from a fleet of 7-11 in a CSG.

A CSG on its own would get sunk by the Russian pacific fleet and air force. The Americans understand this, so they wouldn't do that. They would get the Japanese to put their entire fleet to sea and send a second carrier of their own. And the other problems the Americans have is the Chinese see the Americans off balance and then attack Taiwan, so they couldn't realistically send a carrier at the Russia fleet in the Pacific.
 
Top Bottom