Russia fire warning shots at British Navy

Gatling

Russian bull**** ,

They said similar previously and shared zero evidence to back up their claims ,
If they fired on a NATO vessel they would face consequences , just bigging up oul Vlad as usual

suicide_circus

FIRE ZE MISSILES!!

d15ude

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah a big war is exactly what the world needs.

Who is going to eject them? The Brits and Americans? Who can't even beat the Taliban? I wouldn't be holding my breath.

I remember another country unable to beat the Taliban... :rolleyes:

Gatling

d15ude wrote: »

I remember another country unable to beat the Taliban... :rolleyes:

Russians couldn't beat the goat headers despite bombing the country back to the stone age ,
The Taliban were beaten ,the issue is the Taliban aren't a big standing army ,they loose ground , gain ground and repeat over and over , ideology is difficult to defeat especially when you have a country like Pakistan supplying and training them , while claiming to be an Allie.

Russia doesn't fight big wars they couldn't even beat Ukraine despite having bigger and more forces

CalamariFritti

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

jam_mac_jam

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Exactly. They need to learn to mind their own business.

swarlb

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Who's side are you on, Nato or the Ruskies?

Well... my daughter is Russian.... and my wife is English

I suppose I could always get another wife !!

Gatling

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

It's open water agreements the blacksea belongs to multiple territories NATO ensure russia doesn't interfere with other states it's that simple .

thomil

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Used to be regular occurrences back during the cold war, when Cuba still had a navy capable of sustaining such operations. Back in those days, the USSR also made sure to send their latest & greatest down to port visits in Cuba just to make a point. There's no one stopping the Russians from doing it again if they can muster enough ships to actually make it worthwhile. Pick a better example next time.

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

First of all, Exercise Sea Breeze is not a recent invention. This exercise has been a regular occurrence since 1997. Secondly, it's not just US & Ukraine, but also includes Bulgaria and Romanian, who are NATO members as well. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have exercises with their allies in the Black Sea when both have their entire port infrastructure and navies based there?

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

why is an organisation designed to protect its members states, doing military exercises off the coast of four of those states, along with a state that wants to join because their neighbour has steadily increased its military presence on their border?

it isn't about minding their own business, it is about practicing for the job the organisation was created was to do.

And yeah, Russia is the aggressor.

CalamariFritti

Ye sure. Sorry I asked. Extending NATO right up to the Russian border. Very peaceful intent indeed.

Tabnabs

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Or a large scale Russian naval exercise about 30 miles off Hawaii, last week.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-navy-warships-come-within-two-dozen-miles-of-hawaii/ar-AALlJQW

Gatling

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ye sure. Sorry I asked. Extending NATO right up to the Russian border. Very peaceful intent indeed.

But Russia can expand it's borders towards NATO states

Elmer Blooker

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete and only purpose is to show the flag in what used to be called 'gunboat diplomacy' in the 19th century.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago

A more recent conflict showed having a big army made up of conscripts are usless when the other side have the ability to rain hell from land ,sea and air 24/7 365 .

Comrade go back to bed

Elmer Blooker

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete and only purpose is to show the flag in what used to be called 'gunboat diplomacy' in the 19th century.

Would this be the conflict that involved one of the beligerants jumping in to a load of ships, sailing 8000 miles and winning said conflict?

FileNotFound

CalamariFritti wrote: »

What is NATO doing in the Black Sea doing manoeuvres with Ukraine in the first place?

Its provocation. Imagine Cuba doing naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Mexico. But sure Russia is the aggressor....

Yeah sure peaceful little Russia didn't annex that part of Ukraine and going on a poisoning spree or send subs to wander around the coasts of multiple nations

How dare NATO use waters their allowed to use for exercises.

Russians are like rats these days (nation not the citizens), become a sorry little dictatorship who's only relevance is a nuclear arsenal and F all morals.

The New North Korea.

thomil

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Trying to be relevant and justify its existence. A meaningless exercise.
A war in the South Atlantic almost forty years ago showed that warships are obsolete

What is it with the poor "examples" in this thread? If anything, the ability to deploy significant landing force to the other end of the world with minimal shore support, land said force on territory occupied by your enemy, and establishing local air superiority over the target area clearly shows the immense utility of a navy.
Also, the most decisive sinking of that entire conflict, that of ARA General Belgrano, was carried out by another warship, HMS Conqueror. So yeah, great choice of example there...

Mr. teddywinkles

Smee_Again wrote: »

I still have some loo-roll stockpiled from lockdown 1 so I'll be ok if WWIII kicks off.

Don't forget the bread

Elmer Blooker

thomil wrote: »

Also, the most decisive sinking of that entire conflict, that of ARA General Belgrano, was carried out by another warship, HMS Conqueror. So yeah, great choice of example there...

The HMS Conquerer was a submarine.

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The HMS Conquerer was a submarine.

Remember when Russia shot down flight MH17 killing all on board over Ukraine ,
That wasn't a fighter or bomber aircraft ....

TefalBrain

Gatling wrote: »

But Russia can expand it's borders towards NATO states

Neither should be at it. Let's not pretend Russia is bad and the west is good.

FileNotFound

TefalBrain wrote: »

Neither should be at it. Let's not pretend Russia is bad and the west is good.

Be at what - only one keeps seizing other nations lands, poising random people in public in other nations and shoots down planes with innocent people on them.

Sure the west is not great but the ruskies are stoneage has been sh1tbags these days.

State supported hacking of our health service the latest.


I am now of the belief the rest of the world should boycot and sanction them into the stoneage.

thomil

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The HMS Conquerer was a submarine.

I know, Churchill class nuclear attack submarine. The ship's skipper, Chris Wreford-Brown personally conducted the attack.

She was still a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy. The fact that she operated submerged does not change that status.

If you prefer "standard" surface to surface action, I'll refer you to the sinking of ARA Isla de los Estados by HMS Alacrity.

In either case, or even the case of ARA Santa Fe being sunk by embarked helicopters from HMS Plymouth, Antrim and Brilliant, they were all carried out thousands of miles from the nearest logistical support at Ascencion Island, and even further away from their respective home ports, reinforcing the original point that the Falklands War vindicated rather than dispelled the utility of naval assets.

Brussels Sprout

I looked up the Daily Mail article just so I could look at the comments. All of the top rated comments are taking the Russian side.

Flinty997

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I looked up the Daily Mail article just so I could look at the comments. All of the top rated comments are taking the Russian side.

Russians must pay spammers better...

Gatling

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I looked up the Daily Mail article just so I could look at the comments. All of the top rated comments are taking the Russian side.

You met the troll factory

BloodBath

FileNotFound wrote: »

Be at what - only one keeps seizing other nations lands, poising random people in public in other nations and shoots down planes with innocent people on them.

Sure the west is not great but the ruskies are stoneage has been sh1tbags these days.

State supported hacking of our health service the latest.


I am now of the belief the rest of the world should boycot and sanction them into the stoneage.

What a load of drivel. Where do you read this nonsense?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever about the hacking of the HSE being state sponsored?

Why would it be state sponsored? Russia has a 1.7 Trillion economy despite being heavily sanctioned for decades. A paltry 20 million ransom is nothing and we are not a political enemy.

People will believe any crap they are fed.

corner of hells

thomil wrote: »

I know, Churchill class nuclear attack submarine. The ship's skipper, Chris Wreford-Brown personally conducted the attack.

She was still a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy. The fact that she operated submerged does not change that status.

If you prefer "standard" surface to surface action, I'll refer you to the sinking of ARA Isla de los Estados by HMS Alacrity.

In either case, or even the case of ARA Santa Fe being sunk by embarked helicopters from HMS Plymouth, Antrim and Brilliant, they were all carried out thousands of miles from the nearest logistical support at Ascencion Island, and even further away from their respective home ports, reinforcing the original point that the Falklands War vindicated rather than dispelled the utility of naval assets.

Have you counted all the rivets on the Conqueror too ?

Flinty997

corner of hells wrote: »

Have you counted all the rivets on the Conqueror too ?

That was a different one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(1911)