"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (16 Viewers)

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

What puzzles me, is how anyone would still align themselves with Moscow.

Aside from being a paper tiger, Russia's fortunes are dwindling which means little support for puppet states and those who rule them.

In addition, even Putin's closest associates have been known to contract a severe case of suicide for the smallest reason.

Lukashenko is already walking a fine line and would do well, to back away and if he's smart, move towards working with the opposition party for concessions.
 
Plenty are doing it though, be it through shared views, fear or simply because they are idiots.
 

Fuel depot for Russian strategic bombers struck by Ukraine

A Ukrainian long-range drone strike on the night of January 8 targeted a highly strategic military site in Russia’s Saratov region, reportedly hitting a fuel depot linked to the Engels airbase, home to Russia’s strategic bombers. The attack struck the "Kombinat Kristall" facility, which stores...
defence-blog.com
 
Something to keep in mind for anyone who thinks an unfair imposed peace will result in zero future threat from Russia,,,,they will just take the opportunity to rearm for another attack in the future:

Russian Schoolchildren Are Learning To Fight The Next Drone War

In response to a decree by Putin, Russian schoolchildren are now learning to build and fly drones. It is a strong indication of how they see the future of war.
www.forbes.com
 
Support for Putin? Shared belief in anti- democratic, authoritarian governments.
 
I hope he is smarter than Mussolini and will find a way out of the mess he created for himself and the country.
Probably, the Baltics and Poland could help him - not publicly.
The problem of trust remains though. Lukashenko and his subordinates in 2021-2022 assured Ukraine that the invasion from Belarus was impossible.
 
GTX said:
perhaps one of the defining aspects of a world war is that there are fights going on in multiple countries concurrently.
Click to expand...

The problem with defining the current state of global conflict as a "world War" is that there is not one unifying objective to the fighting. In both WW1 and WW2 the overall endgame was the eradication of German, and in WW2 Japanese militarism. This was the primary reason why the majority of the countries went to war in both those conflicts. Such a situation does not exist today. The world is not "at war", there are several conflicts currently being fought in different geographical locations, but without overwhelming effort toward a single aim where civilians are placed into a war footing in home countries and resources and military forces in countries involved around the world are universally geared toward achieving the single endgame. That is not happening right now.

Let's not forget that the current situation of global conflict has been the state of the world since the end of WW2. Nothing has changed, really, so declaring the times at present as "WW3" misses the mark as, if we were to do so, we'd be up to WW15+ by now. Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, the Former Republic of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and countless other multinational conflicts have been fought since the end of WW2, yet, WW3 has not been declared, even during the Cold War at times when the world came very close to global conflict and a truly global WW3 with clearly identifiable unifying objectives.
 
GTX said:
One might argue therefore that WW1 hardly qualifies given it was predominantly Europe based albeit with some offshoots. In the world of cyber attacks etc one might argue this constitutes an additional theatre.
Click to expand...

Let's not redefine what has been established globally to fit a narrative. You're missing that obvious point that the countries that were sending their military forces and their civilians off to die on the battlefields of Europe, Turkey, Africa, the South Pacific and South Atlantic during WW1 were from all over the world, not to mention the overriding objective of all those nations - the end of German militarism. In this conflict there are precisely three (now the DPRK have joined in) combatants. None of the countries that supply weaponry to Ukraine are in a state of war. None have declared war against Russia and none have government troops in theatre.

In contrast, let's look at Korea. For three years the Korean War was fought, longer than the current (to date) conflict in Ukraine. There were sixteen nations that declared their support to fight against Communist forces by United Nations Decree, meaning sixteen nations sent troops to fight, not just to supply arms, but to fight, and that's not counting the Communist countries whose troops fought for their allies. At the time of Korea, countries who sent troops were not at a state of war, they sent arms and troops, but they did not declare war against North Korea, although they fought and died for a common purpose. Truman called Korea a "police action" and it is defined as a proxy war despite involving a large number of combatant countries from around the world and a decree from the UN. We don't call Korea a World War, but of any global conflict that has happened since WW2, by definition it comes pretty close.

As I mentioned, the global situation has not changed since the end of WW2. There is war in countries all over the world, but there isn't a "World War".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 17 (members: 3, guests: 14)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
884
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
529
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register