"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just to demonstrate there are bad people on both sides of this war, here's a potential war crime committed by Ukrainian troops on Russian POWs. The details aren't confirmed, and there are lots of questions...but it simply highlights the ugliness of this whole situation:

www.bbc.com

Does video show Russian prisoners being shot?

Ukrainian authorities investigate a video apparently showing Russian PoWs being shot in the legs.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Last edited:
buffnut453 said:
Just to demonstrate there are bad people on both sides of this war, here's a potential war crime committed by Ukrainian troops on Russian POWs. The details aren't confirmed, and there are lots of questions...but it simply highlights the ugliness of this whole situation:

www.bbc.com

Does video show Russian prisoners being shot?

Ukrainian authorities investigate a video apparently showing Russian PoWs being shot in the legs.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

War brings out the worst in everyone.
 
GrauGeist said:
The most likely Tactical nuclear missile Russia would use, is the SS-21, which they have been firing at the Ukraine already, with conventional warheads.

The Russians also have nuclear artillery - that would be a problem.
Click to expand...

A tactical nuke solution is firing a nuke warhead spiked grenade from a common artillery howitzer - there is no trajectory to detect or to intercept. range 30-50km

Present modern tactical Russian vehicle based artillery missile systems from the concept similar to, an MLRS - even though there is a trajectory - but it's not a ballistic trajectory,
which is necessary for an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System to go into action. One can spot a launch via satellite but with no up-link to an aircraft or
ground based anti-missile system, and even then due to it's restricted time to impact - chances for interception doesn't look good.

The intercepted Russian missiles you are referring to, AFAIK were cruise-missiles which are indeed easy to intercept. - if one has the tec.

The SS-21 is a ballistic missile - therefore unlikely to be used IMHO.

In 1999, the "efforts" of the Ukrainian rocket engineers "Tochka-U" thundered to the whole world. On April 20, a rocket was launched from the Goncharovsky ground located 130 km north of Kiev, which then deviated from the course and at 15:05 landed in a residential building in Brovary, breaking through nine floors. The tragic incident killed 3 and injured 5 people. Fortunately, the rocket was not equipped with a warhead, otherwise there would have been much more casualties.

On 21 October 1999 US satellites [reportedly the Defense Support Program] tracked two Russian short-range ballistic missile launched from the Russian city of Mozdok some 60 miles northeast of Grozny. The missiles slammed into a crowded Grozny marketplace and a maternity ward, killing at least 143 persons, according to reports from the region. The missiles are believed by intelligence analysts to have been SS-21s.

During the ongoing civil war in the south of the Arabian Peninsula, the "Points" of the Houthi rebels did considerable damage to the Saudi coalition forces.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
I believe that even if Putin uses a tactical nuke against Ukraine, NATO will still not commence offensive ops into Russia. It's a defensive alliance and its only job is to deter and counter Russian offensive ops into NATO member territory. Putin can go full on Holocaust and toss a hundred thousand Ukrainian babies into the ovens, or mirror Saddam at Halabja and poison gas entire cities, and still NATO will not budge. It's a defensive alliance, pure and simple.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I believe that even if Putin uses a tactical nuke against Ukraine, NATO will still not commence offensive ops into Russia. It's a defensive alliance and its only job is to deter and counter Russian offensive ops into NATO member territory. Putin can go full on Holocaust and toss a hundred thousand Ukrainian babies into the ovens, or mirror Saddam at Halabja and poison gas entire cities, and still NATO will not budge. It's a defensive alliance, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
Maybe it isn't so much about being a "defensive" alliance. NATO members didn't have a problem attacking underdogs - e.g. Serbia, Libya, Syria, etc.
It's the fear of the Zar's NUKES that keeps them at bay. As such, unfortunately I have to agree with your assessment.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Jagdflieger said:
It's the fear of the Zar's NUKES that keeps them at bay. As such, unfortunately I have to agree with your assessment.
Click to expand...
Only one nation has used nuclear weapons in war. It's no wonder that everyone else, and especially anyone not alligned with US geopolitics rushed to get them in order to prevent the originator from once again deciding matters with nukes or the threat thereof. Had Saddam or Gaddafi had nukes they'd likely still be in power today, like Kim in North Korea - he knew the lesson well.
 
buffnut453 said:
Here's a translation of the comments made by Russia's Alexander Fomin, who's part of the negotiating team in Istanbul:

Due to the fact that negotiations over an agreement on Ukraine's neutrality and non-nuclear status and security guarantees (for Ukraine) are moving into a practical stage, and taking into consideration the principles discussed during today's meeting, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation has taken the decision to drastically reduce combat operations in the Kyiv and Chernihiv areas in order to boost mutual trust and create the necessary conditions for further negotiations and for the signing of the aforementioned agreement.
Click to expand...
Does kind of sound like an admission that things have not gone the way they wanted but that they won't admit officially. Also sounds like they are desperate to see this ended before things get worse...on the home front in Russia.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Maybe it isn't so much about being a "defensive" alliance. NATO members didn't have a problem attacking underdogs - e.g. Serbia, Libya, Syria, etc.
It's the fear of the Zar's NUKES that keeps them at bay. As such, unfortunately I have to agree with your assessment.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...
The "no-fly" in Libya was in response to the UN resolution 1973 and was not an offensive operation.
The NATO action in Serbia (Yugoslavia) was a response to the humanitarian crisis - UN sought intervention but was blocked by Russia and China.
The Syrian civil war had zero NATO involvement. Several NATO member nations were involved, but as seperate entities. Keep in mind that Turkey and Russia had direct military confrontation and had it been an official NATO action, then Russia's attack on Turkish forces would have seen an escalation, as Turkey is a member of NATO.

So NATO didn't attack "under dogs", each action mentioned above was a limited response to an ongoing situation.
 
GrauGeist said:
The "no-fly" in Libya was in response to the UN resolution 1973 and was not an offensive operation.
Click to expand...
What does the attack onto Libya by NATO members in 2011 have to do with a UN resolution of 1973? and Libya had not attacked any NATO member
GrauGeist said:
The NATO action in Serbia (Yugoslavia) was a response to the humanitarian crisis - UN sought intervention but was blocked by Russia and China.
Click to expand...
Serbia had not attacked any NATO member - humanitarian action or not, NATO did attack
GrauGeist said:
The Syrian civil war had zero NATO involvement. Several NATO member nations were involved, but as seperate entities. Keep in mind that Turkey and Russia had direct military confrontation and had it been an official NATO action, then Russia's attack on Turkish forces would have seen an escalation, as Turkey is a member of NATO.
Click to expand...
you are joking right? did Turkey attack Syria? yes, did Syria attack Turkey? No - is Turkey a NATO member? yes
Has the US conducted airstrikes in Syria? yes, has Syria attacked the USA? no - are there US troops in Syria? yes, Is the USA a NATO member? yes
GrauGeist said:
So NATO didn't attack "under dogs", each action mentioned above was a limited response to an ongoing situation.
Click to expand...
So yes, NATO members have attacked several countries that have never attacked a NATO member - humanitatrian action or not, except Russia and N-Korea and any other country that has NUKES. As such to call it a "defensive" organisation is ridiculous and presently just being used as an excuse not to get involved with e.g. Russia because they are no underdog since they unfortunately have NUKES.

You honestly believe that if the UN would sanction military actions against Russia, that NATO would follow suit?

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
Jagdflieger said:
What does the attack onto Libya by NATO members in 2011 have to do with a UN resolution of 1973? and Libya had not attacked any NATO member

Serbia had not attacked any NATO member - humanitarian action or not, NATO did attack

you are joking right? did Turkey attack Syria? yes, did Syria attack Turkey? No - is Turkey a NATO member? yes
Has the US conducted airstrikes in Syria? yes, has Syria attacked the USA? no - are there US troops in Syria? yes, Is the USA a NATO member? yes

So yes, NATO members have attacked several countries that have never attacked a NATO member - humanitatrian action or not, except Russia and N-Korea and any other country that has NUKES. As such to call it a "defensive" organisation is ridiculous and presently just being used as an excuse not to get involved with e.g. Russia because they are no underdog since they unfortunately have NUKES.

You honestly believe that if the UN would sanction military actions against Russia, that NATO would follow suit?

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

You're either drinking some potent kool-aid or you're getting your wires completely tangled.

NATO has ZERO power to compel member nations to act EXCEPT in defence of any member nation that is attacked. Member nations retain autonomy of foreign, domestic, and defence policies, which means NATO members are free to act militarily within the constraints of their sovereign legal framework. Just because a NATO member nation takes military action does NOT mean that such action is condoned by NATO, nor does it compel other NATO members to join the effort.

So, yes, NATO is a purely defensive alliance. Nothing more, nothing less. There is some wriggle room when it comes to broader threats to member nations, such as the humanitarian emergency that kicked off the operations against Serbia. We can get into the whys and wherefores of NATO treating Serbia differently than Russia...but please do not confuse the unilateral actions of NATO member nations as somehow being representative of NATO the Organization.
 
From Life magazine, June 30 1941....sounds vaguely familiar

1648586474179.png
 
buffnut453 said:
And the T-34 on the plinth is saying "These young whippersnappers simply don't have what it takes" or something very similar in Russian tankish.
Click to expand...

Possibly something like "idi nahui Rossiya" I'm hoping. Those are everywhere and in every town. When I travelled on the main road between Moscow and Warsaw, every small town and village had a T-34 or some kind of war memorial, modern jet fighters were frequently seen. One small town we passed through had a Yak piston engined fighter, but we didn't stop, so I didn't get a look at it.



GrauGeist said:
and it wasn't even in the fight.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think the Russian soldiers are the equivalent of Imperial Stormtroopers in their aiming skills...
 
Jagdflieger said:
then via long-range artillery 30-50 km or from a short-range Missile launcher within the Ukrainian territory
Click to expand...

This is of course most likely as the Strategic Rocket Forces divisions operating cruise missiles from TELS have ben put on alert and are around the border, as a precautionary measure, of course. Putin has threatened global nuclear conflict following NATO's statement it would send peacekeeping troops into Ukraine, which is a worry, but again, it could be simply messaging.

I doubt NATO would charge in guns blazing even if Putin used nukes in Ukraine for the reasons stated earlier, to do with Article 5. The UN however might be forced to do something, perhaps enact a resolution, but again, I cannot see NATO as a collective go to war with Russia over Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 4 (members: 2, guests: 2)

    Similar threads

    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    876
    GTX
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    1K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    567
    Snautzer01
    Snautzer01
    M
    What Is The Point Of This?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    362
    SaparotRob
    SaparotRob
    M
    USAF Provides More Proof That UFOs are Real!
    Replies
    0
    Views
    383
    MIflyer
    M
    Back