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-Ukraine War (Threadbanned in op)

1161162164166167

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,714 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I read them.

    You are 100% pro Russia and no amount of "I want Ukraine to win but" is gonna fool anyone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    double post



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    Wrong again, nothing I've written hints at being 100% pro-Russian. It seems to be all you have.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    A nuclear war hasn't been seen in actuality in 80 years; (cold war dick swinging aside) it would be a significant escalation to say the least. Far more than chemical warfare. As I said though, the nuclear bluff's been called a few times now.

    But that's still not addressing the fact that what you'd stated I'd written was wholly incorrect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,266 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    And no matter how many times his mouthpieces mention the word nuclear… Putin can't go there. Not only would he lose Chinese backing, Biden has told him it'll be the end of his conventional forces if he does.

    Just imagine the damage a single squadron of F35s could do to Russia's military capabilities. Then consider what the entire air power of NATO could do. Russia would be bombed back to the stone age.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,546 ✭✭✭weisses


    Technically we never had a Nuclear war… as where two sides using them. The closest we got was 1962

    On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick

    Russia using proper chemical and/or biological agents would just as much be seen as an escalation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭amandstu


    "

    "On the one hand Russia using a tactical nuke somewhere might be a blessing, it would end this conflict pretty quick"

    You will have to explain how it could be a good idea for Russia to use a tactical nuclear bomb on innocent Ukrainians.

    A blessing for who?



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    Dear gawd, having to read through your, er, contributions is bad enough the first time.

    "The danger in all of these recent Ukrainian success's is that the response from Putin also increases in its requirement for retribution - both in actuality on the ground and in propaganda."

    This is your post - "retribution" are you saying it's totally unreasonable to assume you're talking about 'Da bomb' here, considering the context?

    Once I mentioned nukes you pivoted to chemical weapons etc as possible retribution.

    Anyway, now that that is cleared up for any reasonable person, are you advocating Ukraine seek peace as it's best option right now?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 750 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    Meanwhile ISIS taken over a prison in Volgograd and running riot with hostages

    Poor Putin can’t get a break



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    Second time that's happened. What's that saying, first time is a misfortune, second time is careless. 😂



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,268 ✭✭✭paul71


    Another 5 pages of shite from another poster who thinks the Russian army is the power that the Soviet army was in 1945 to 1989, without the Warsaw pact economies, without 1/3 of the population of the Soviet Union, with 30 years of theft and lies of the post communist era, with the black sea fleet now sitting on the ocean floor, and with 2 years of battlefield loss, and currently begging from North Korea.

    It is actually pathetic to think how gullable some people are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,546 ✭✭✭weisses


    It would not be a good idea for the Russians to use one. (hence me saying it could be a blessing for the Ukrainians) Using a Tactical nuke on an Ukrainian military target would be pretty gruesome, I would assume that after the russians using one, the rest of this bloody conflict would be short lived, saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives.

    But escalation wise Russia will not use one and strategically its not wise to do so either, mainly because you cannot occupy a position you just nuked ( Russians digging around Chernobyl thought otherwise)

    Interesting piece below for relevance

    https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/AUPress/Book-Reviews/Display/Article/2462838/atomic-salvation-how-the-a-bomb-saved-the-lives-of-32-million-people/#:~:text=Lewis%20estimates%20that%20the%20bombing,of%20roughly%2030%20million%20people.

    "Lewis estimates that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the extent that it induced Japanese surrender, saved the lives of roughly 30 million people."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    Again I didn't pivot, you made an assumption in your , er, contributions and were proven incorrect.

    I didn't infer/mean/imply 'Da bomb'; when it was put to me I unequivocally stated that is not what I had been referring to.

    I'd even quoted another post to clarify what retribution could be expected.

    I do expect Putin to respond the only way he knows how to. Lashing out and destroying civilian infrastructure and accommodation.

    I fully expect to hear horrific reports of hospitals, schools, power generation facilities, etc, to be targeted on a much larger level shortly.

    Because thats just the kind of cnut he is.

    Is that clear enough for you or do you need to continue to misrepresent what I read to countenance your assumption and misunderstanding of what I wrote?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭junkyarddog


    https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1826933184765784433

    IS terrorists take over a russian prison!!

    Deliberately didn't embed the link correctly as it's NSFW,but it has been blurred.



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    How can I be proven incorrect. It was reasonable to assume that's the "sky is falling" meaning of your post was 'Da Bomb' - I wasn't the only one to assume such. You subsequently went on to say it could be Chemical Weapons Putin uses, both are war crimes. So, I was hardly (at worst) far off.

    But, now that you've cleared that up to your own satisfaction, are you still going to run from my question? You do realise, acknowledging the question and ignoring it equally serves my purpose. Thank you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Dubh Geannain


    Decent animation with a decent margin of error but it's still very interesting to watch.

    Re: Korenevo, it looks like the main plan might be to try and cut it off if they can make it to the Seym River to the North via Tolpino of the town then they'll achieve that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    As I mentioned, you posted your clarification as possibly the war crimes that are chemical weapons - AFTER I said 'Nukes'. You'll not change the narrative.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    How can I be proven incorrect. It was reasonable to assume that's the "sky is falling" meaning of your post. You subsequently went on to say it could be Chemical Weapons Putin uses, both are war crimes. So, I was hardly (at worst) far off.

    If you read the follow up posts I was quite clear, you just chose to ignore them. You made an assumption and jumped on it without reading all I wrote, and were plainly wrong in your assumption/assertion.

    But, now that you've cleared that up to your own satisfaction, are you still going to run from my question? You do realise, acknowledging the question and ignoring it equally serves my purpose. Thank you.

    which question?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭Paddigol


    The name calling is embarrassing lads. Primary school stuff. All because someone took great offence at the above innocuous post.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭junkyarddog


    Aftermath of yesterdays fuel ferry strike!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    You assumed 'Nukes'. I did not. You'll not change the narrative indeed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 750 ✭✭✭thatsdaft




  • Registered Users Posts: 46 anonymouscactus


    Putin looking very weak and unable to maintain order at the moment with everything from the prison takeover to the Kursk incursion. This is very, very damaging for a 'strong man' who rules through fear and the promise of order. Having lived through the 80s when Russia/USSR was a genuine 'superpower' I am shaking my head everyday at the growing chaos… and Russia seems to have no answer to it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    I made the assumption first, then you changed to Chemical weapons. Read back through the muck, I had to.

    Re the question. Do you think Ukraine should be the ones to look for peace with Russia and - follow up, separate question - would you advocate Ukraine give up land if Putin said he'd agree to stop fighting.



  • Registered Users Posts: 206 ✭✭Avatar in the Post


    It's not innocuous to suggest Ukraine should not go on the offensive, it's very much to the core of a certain belief. And you should know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭amandstu


    My concern would be that nuclear weapons should (a) never be used again (b) or only in self defence

    It would be best if they could be monitored out of existence but people have not agitated for that.

    If a tactical nuke was used in any circumstance at all there is a risk of escalation to strategic nuclear weapons and a mind numbing global disaster for us all…and I feel all talk on the internet about their realistic use is really loose talk.(hear no evil…. is my maxim)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 536 ✭✭✭junkyarddog


    Poor old Vlad,guy really can't catch a break!

    Looking a bit nervous.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,501 ✭✭✭Dubh Geannain


    To sum up:

    Su-34 destroyed in maintenance and repair area

    Su-24 (retired) destroyed in maintenance and repair area

    Su-34 destroyed/damaged beyond repair in shelter 3

    Su-34 damaged in shelter 5

    Su-34 damaged in shelter 6

    Su-24 possibly damaged in shelter 7

    From:



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Suckler


    I made the assumption first, then you changed to Chemical weapons. Read back through the muck, I had to.

    Thank you. You made the initial assumption. I cannot change your assumption. I started off with 'retribution' nothing about nukes etc. Three posters jumped on it assuming nukes.

    I wrote 'retribution' in post 4818 - Your immediate assumption was 'nukes'. So yes I read your 'muck' and you remain incorrect in your initial assumption and contiued assertion that 'nukes' are what I was referring to.

    Do you think Ukraine should be the ones to look for peace with Russia

    No; (from memory) the Chechen cease fires in the 90's benefitted Russia in regrouping at the time and going at it again.

    Also at this stage, I think Putin would see that as Ukraine being out of men, machines and missiles and be an opportunity for him. Also would the propaganda around it be good for him; if it made him look weak would he be able to do it? I doubt it. After Ukraine's first foray into Russia the 'lets talk this out' flag would/could be seen as surrender.

    This is also on the premise that the west keep up support for Ukraine.

    would you advocate Ukraine give up land if Putin said he'd agree to stop fighting.

    Can't answer that in all honesty, it isn't a black and white question at the moment.

    In an ideal world, Ukraine can push them back all the way across the border with two fingers to talks; - fantastic, but how plausible is that? Is Crimea part of that discussion?

    Yes to giving up land, if support was starting to wane in the west and it looked like they were on an inevitable way to losses everywhere. They'd have to. But we're a ways from that yet. What happens in the US elections could also affect it.

    Given the current lift the Kursk incursion has given them, it will be interesting to see what they can hold both North and South and I doubt Ukraine would be first to the table right now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 750 ✭✭✭thatsdaft




Advertisement